[123250] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Mar 4 14:13:12 2010
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:12:01 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Thomas Magill <tmagill@providecommerce.com>
In-Reply-To: <FA2E47FFA50291418803D2E7C1DF07F30A6A671D@SDEXCL01.Proflowers.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 03/04/2010 10:52 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
> 2. Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. The most obvious
> answer is that some hardware may not handle it... How is that hardware
> going to handle an IP6 table then? I have had several occasions where
> functionally I needed to advertise for different sites but only needed
> 20-30 addresses which is a complete waste of a /24. How hard would it
> be to start allowing /25s when compared to trying to roll out IP6?
prefix deaggregatation beyond /24 is probably inevitable but that
doesn't mean you want people to burn routing table slots on your
equipment for /28s. That routing table slot is an externality that
everyone has to pay for. By holding the line to the extent that it is
held, a cap of the growth rate of your dfz fib that is roughly congruent
with rir policy.
handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long
term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4, the
prospect of having a bunch of non-aggregatable direct assignments should
be much lower...
