[123326] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff McAdams)
Fri Mar 5 09:38:37 2010
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:37:46 -0500
From: Jeff McAdams <jeffm@iglou.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9e246b4d1003050555r4e13d2f8k668dc549f1e78444@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/5/10 8:55 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> 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.
It will be the case for many mid-sized businesses.
Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6
will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1. I don't
anticipate either ever having needs larger than the single initial
allocation they have or would get. Both are multi-homed.
--
Jeff McAdams
jeffm@iglou.com
