[154066] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 /64 links (was Re: ipv6 book recommendations?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Sat Jun 23 00:49:43 2012
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4FE3B0D2.7080705@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Unlike IPv4 with natural boundary of /24, routing table
> explosion of IPv6 is a serious scalability problem.
I really don't see where you're getting that from. The biggest consumers
of IPv4 space in the US tended to get initial IPv6 blocks from ARIN that
were large enough to accommodate their needs for some time. One large v6
prefix in the global routing table is more efficient in terms of the
impact on the global routing table than the patchwork of IPv4 blocks
those same providers needed to get over time to accommodate growth.
Those 'green-field' deployments of IPv6, coupled with the sparse allocation
model that the RIRs seem to be using will do a lot to keep v6 routing
table growth in check.
I see periodic upticks in the growth of the global v6 routing table (a
little over 9k prefixes at the moment - the v4 global view is about 415k
prefixes right now), which I would reasonably attribute an upswing in
networks getting initial assignments. If anything, I see more of a chance
for the v4 routing table to grow more out of control, as v4 blocks get
chopped up into smaller and smaller pieces in an ultimately vain effort to
squeeze a little more mileage out of IPv4.
jms
