[111462] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Jakma)
Fri Feb 6 05:28:40 2009
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:26:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: Paul Jakma <paul@jakma.org>
To: Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc@internode.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <498A3514.1050608@internode.com.au>
Mail-Copies-To: paul@jakma.org
Mail-Followup-To: paul@jakma.org
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> DHCP(v6). Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going
> to be their own statically is insane and will blow out provider's
> own routing tables more than is rational.
Routing table size will be a function of the number of customers -
*not* the prefix length assigned to them (for so long as address
space is sufficiently sparsely allocated that there's a 1:1 mapping
from customer to prefix - which should be "for a long time" with
IPv6).
So (within that longer term constraint) it doesn't matter if you're
allocating your customer a /48, /56 or /64.
Indeed, what you're suggesting - smaller-than-64 allocations -
*would* increase routing table sizes. With your proposal those
indexes would increase greatly in depth (and possibly other space
increases due to not being able to optimise for "hierarchical routing
of bits past 64 is highly rare").
Think of IPv6 as a 64bit network address + host address. At least for
now.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
If you don't have a nasty obituary you probably didn't matter.
-- Freeman Dyson
