[111477] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Fri Feb 6 10:09:27 2009
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:08:06 -0800
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@eeph.com>
To: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon@csc.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF19016523.6707EF74-ON85257555.004A67D6-85257555.004A9CA0@csc.com>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: matthew@eeph.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Joe Loiacono wrote:
> Indeed it does. And don't forget that the most basic data object in the
> routing table, the address itself, is 4 times as big.
"2 times as big", if you believe that routers that need to care about
table size won't do anything about what's past the /64 boundary.
It still costs money. Especially since you'll also need to be carrying
the v4 table for approximately forever, and it'll be deaggregating
faster and faster at least for a while.
Matthew Kaufman
