[124094] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP4 Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (isabel dias)
Tue Mar 23 12:01:07 2010
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: isabel dias <isabeldias1@yahoo.com>
To: Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <290C0D04-9161-4AF6-898B-FCD795556539@internode.com.au>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
=0A=0A"IPv6 routing table 7-10 times smaller than the IPv4 routing table"=
=0Ahttp://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-May/014240.html=0A=0A=0A:=
-)=0A=A0 =0A=0Aa bit of old stuff to get to the bottom line....=A0 =0A=0Aht=
tp://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-plenary-bgp.pd=
f=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Mark Newton <newton@=
internode.com.au>=0ATo: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>=0ACc: NANOG list <nan=
og@nanog.org>=0ASent: Tue, March 23, 2010 5:27:27 AM=0ASubject: Re: IP4 Spa=
ce=0A=0A=0AOn 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:=0A> =0A> With the =
smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less expensive. As a r=
esult, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multihomers.=0A> That's gene=
rally a good thing.=0A=0APuzzled:=A0 How does the IPv6 routing table get sm=
aller?=0A=0AThere's currently social pressure against deaggregation, but gi=
ven time=0Awhy do you think the same drivers that lead to v4 deaggregation =
won't also=0Alead to v6 deaggregation?=0A=0A(small multihomers means more d=
iscontiguous blocks of PI space too, right?)=0A=0A=A0 - mark=0A=0A--=0AMark=
Newton=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Email:=
=A0 newton@internode.com.au (W)=0ANetwork Engineer=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Email:=A0 newton@atdot.dotat.org=A0 (H)=0AInter=
node Pty Ltd=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Desk:=A0 +61-8-=
82282999=0A"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"=A0 Mobile: +61-416-202-=
223=0A=0A=0A
