[134956] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 prefix lengths
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Luigi Iannone)
Thu Jan 13 08:05:01 2011
From: Luigi Iannone <luigi@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To: <3F57B570-4E67-4118-9DB4-03242AD9CACC@delong.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:04:49 +0100
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed =
into
>> IPv6. Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough
>> practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, =
which
>> will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and
>> policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to
>> become multi-homed.
>>=20
>> This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient
>> solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets.
>>=20
> It's well known that IPv6 will require a scalable routing solution and =
that
> one has not yet been developed. I'll be surprised if there isn't more
> progress out of IETF on this issue in the near future.
>=20
The RRG of the IRTF has spent the last two years on this topic. A =
summary of the discussed solutions can be find in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-16
A spin off of that activity is the LISP WG in the IETF =
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/charter/)
Luigi
> Owen
>=20
>=20
