[154036] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 21 20:31:11 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FE3B0D2.7080705@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:28:20 -0700
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 21, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Does not scale. Not enough IPv4 addresses to do that for 6.8
>> billion people on the planet.
>
> It is the first step to have the RSIP style transparent Internet.
>
> The second step is to use port numbers for routing within ISPs.
> But, it is not necessary today.
>
Still doesn't scale. 40 bits isn't enough to uniquely identify a
conversation end-point. If you use port numbers for routing,
you don't have enough port numbers for conversation IDs.
>> What if my ISP just routes my /48? Seems to work quite well,
>> actually.
>
> Unlike IPv4 with natural boundary of /24, routing table
> explosion of IPv6 is a serious scalability problem.
>
Solvable. IPv6 has enough bits that we can use map/encap or
other various forms of herarchical overlay ASN-based routing
to resolve those issues over time.
Owen
