Subject: [rrg] 10M ... 100M end-user networks

From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 13:26:15 +1100

Short version:    The current number and rate of growth in the number
                  of multihomed end-user networks is not our
                  primary concern.

                  Our aim, as best I understand it, is to design
                  an architectural enhancement for the Internet
                  by which the much higher numbers of end-user
                  networks which want/need multihoming, TE and
                  address portability can have these in a manner
                  which is technically and economically sustainable
                  for ISPs and for the end-user networks
                  themselves.

                  A system which would work nicely with 10M
                  such end-user networks would be good.  One
                  which scales well to 100M or 1B would be better.

                  Ideally the system should have an architecture
                  and business arrangements whereby each end-user
                  network does not impose unreasonable burdens on
                  others due to its activities, including how
                  many prefixes they advertise, how often they
                  change these advertisements and other matters
                  such as their share of traffic on OITRDs
                  (Open ITRs in the DFZ = LISP PTRs).  When
                  such a system can technically scale well to
                  100s of millions of end-user networks - or
                  perhaps billions - and can be run as a series
                  of profitable businesses, then there will be
                  no scaling limits (or at least not for decades
                  to come) and little or no unreasonable burden
                  of costs.

                  I think Ivip has a much better chance of
                  achieving this than other proposals.

                  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/Ivip-summary.pdf

In "Re: BGP scaling limit?" Tony wrote:

> We already know that we're growing the table faster than
> technology can keep up.  That much is clear.

I am not convinced that this is the case right now, since I can
imagine the continued advances in multi-CPU chips (with each CPU
running at 3GHz or more, with its own cache) with sufficiently large
amounts of static RAM, would be able to perform (separately) the RIB
and 1/10/40 Gbps FIB functions.  However, that would be expensive and
inelegant - and would raise the real cost of DFZ routers in a manner
I think is unreasonable.  Keeping the current system and souping up
the routers like this would perpetuate and exacerbate the current
problems, including:

  1 - Difficulty and high costs for any end-user network which wants
      or needs multihoming, TE and portability.

  2 - Every such network advertising its one, two or more prefixes
      placing an unreasonable burden on ISPs and multihomed end-user
      networks all over the world by adding to the RIB and FIB
      workload of their routers.   (Assuming these DFZ routers do
      carry the prefixes.)

  3 - This burden is shared across all Internet users.  A result of
      this is higher barriers to Internet use than would otherwise be
      the case - which shuts out some poorer people from using the
      Net at all.

  4 - A grey area of investment, unreasonable burdens and risk as
      DFZ router operators are increasing tempted not to accept
      some prefixes of multihomed end-user networks.

  5 - Consequently, an increasing number of end-user networks
      not getting the reliable service they need, at a time of
      increasing demand, increasingly diverse usage, and increasing
      moment-to-moment dependence on Internet communications.

I thought we agreed that our task is to modify the Net so the current
scaling difficulties with the BGP routing system are resolved, not
just for a continuation of current growth rates, but for 10s or 100s
of millions of multihomed end-user networks gaining multihoming, TE
and portability.

If not, I think now would be a good time to check consensus that we
are not just trying to cope with the existing, unacceptably
constrained, growth in the number of end-user networks with
multihoming, TE and portability, but to create a network which
technically and commercially cope well with some very large number of
such end-user networks.

A scheme which could clearly cope with 100M would be a good start.

Ideally - in my view - the system would be extendible to support a
form of mobility in which billions of mobile devices could keep their
IP address, or prefix, no matter where they physically connect to the
Net.  A plan for this is in the paper Steve Russert and I wrote:

  TTR Mobility Extensions for Core-Edge Separation Solutions to the
  Internet's Routing Scaling Problem
  http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/#mobile

The key to this is that a mapping change is only needed when the
point of attachment moves such a distance (such as ~1000km) from the
currently used TTR that it is best to choose another TTR.  This will
happen far less frequently than the changes in connection point, or
change of which access networks are used for the connection.

Each Ivip mapping change is paid for, so there are little or no
unreasonable cost burdens resulting from these changes.

 - Robin

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:37:19 EST

In einer eMail vom 04.01.2009 03:26:38 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt  
[email-masked]:

A system which doesn't care how many end-users are attached would even  be 
better :-)
Heiner
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg