[123323] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Durack)
Fri Mar 5 08:55:58 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B90F779.7030809@nosignal.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:55:29 -0500
From: Tim Durack <tdurack@gmail.com>
To: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
> On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
>>> 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...
>> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>
> The opposite, but a clean slate means multihomed networks with many v4
> prefixes may be able to be a multihomed network with just one v6 prefix.
Assuming RIR policy allows multi-homers to be allocated/assigned
enough v6 to grow appreciably without having to go back to the RIR. As
a multi-homed end-user, I don't currently find that to be the case.
--
Tim:>
