[118136] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Oct 13 00:14:34 2009
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 PDT."
<20372E71-9EC3-40CE-B876-DE53985DC939@virtualized.org>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:12:06 -0400
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1255407126_3557P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 PDT, David Conrad said:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer.
>
> I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in
> IPv6 than in IPv4.
You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we
are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that
is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room
in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
--==_Exmh_1255407126_3557P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFK0/4WcC3lWbTT17ARAvcpAJ0Tk0IiCqnt3j53uQZCI218ziDbzQCg9bZQ
FL1kW6FYtb0dm9H8Rc0ZG8k=
=1rzn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1255407126_3557P--
