I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

[S.P.Zeidler]

Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com):

> The problem is, site IT managers don't seem to like this model and its
> implication of renumbering when you add or drop an ISP.

I'm currently a network admin 2 days a month, accumulated, the rest of the
time I'm a sysadmin. The thing -I- seriously don't like about this model
is that it puts the decision about routing on the communication endpoints,
all of them, in their precious multitude and variability.

The model expects that every last desktop OS has a perfect and
sophisticated network stack, and that it will remain bugless forever
and anon even in rarely used variants. This is quite unrealistic.
As a result, you'd turn network admin into a job that scales with the
number of hosts, not with the number of routers.

Balance the cost of this manpower against the cost of running BGP.
With enough hosts, BGP will be cheaper -> all sites above a certain size
that require resilient networking will want their own presence in the DFZ.
I'd guesstimate the flip point at about ~100 hosts that actually need to
have connectivity (as opposed to, need to be able to talk to a web proxy
and mail server).

regards,
	spz
-- 
spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)