[138660] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: estimation of number of DFZ IPv4 routes at peak in the future
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin Krejci)
Fri Mar 11 18:39:29 2011
From: Justin Krejci <jkrejci@usinternet.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <91E4F353-2C3A-4E49-9001-4DE078974675@istaff.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 17:39:21 -0600
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:32 -0500, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:44:05PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> i am more of a pessimist. i suspect that there will be enough v4-only
> >> destinations out there that multi-homed enterprises fronting onto
> >> dual-stack backbones will announce teenie bits of v4 so they can nat64.
> >
> > I'll take this one a little further.
> >
> > I suspect that as we reach exhaustion, more people will be
> > forced to break space out of their provider's v4 aggregates, and
> > announce them, and an unfiltered DFZ may well approach the 'million'
> > entries some vendors now claim to support.
>
> This matches my personal view (and could be viewed as
> "success" compared to the 5M estimate of Mr. Herrin...)
>
> /John
Are people going to be relying on using default-routing then in the
future if they don't upgrade routers to handle large routing table
growth? Or perhaps forgo dual-stack and have a separate physical IPv6
BGP network from IPv4? Are there any other strategies?
