[154038] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jun 21 20:51:32 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <18112.1340325408@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:45:21 -0700
To: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 21, 2012, at 5:36 PM, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:40:02 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
>>> What if my ISP just routes my /48? Seems to work quite well,
>>> actually.
>>=20
>> Unlike IPv4 with natural boundary of /24, routing table
>> explosion of IPv6 is a serious scalability problem.
>=20
> Do you have any *realistic* and *actual* reason to suspect that the =
IPv6
> routing table will "explode" any further than the IPv4 has already? =
Hint -
> Owen's /48 will just get aggregated and announced just like the cable =
companies
> *already* aggregate all those /20s of customer /32s. Unless Owen =
multihomes - at
> which point he's a new entry in the v6 routing tables - but *also* =
almost
> certainly a new entry in the v4 routing table. Routing table size =
depends on
> the number of AS's, not the amount of address space the routes cover.
>=20
>=20
Um, unlikely. My /48 is an ARIN direct assignment: 2620:0:930::/48
It's not really aggregable with their other customers.
I do multihome and I am one entry in the v6 routing tables. However, I'm =
actually
two entries in the v4 routing table. 192.159.10.0/24 and =
192.124.40.0/23.
Owen
