[167214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Naive IPv6 (was AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Dec 4 15:34:10 2013
In-Reply-To: <CAH1iCiqg_iU21cd0wU7Zo9GpRN0SwN+AxcePvK0aqLGDisV_8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:33:54 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Brian Dickson
<brian.peter.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
> IF deployed by operators correctly, the global routing table should be 1
> IPv6 route per ASN.
> However, that is only feasible if each ASN can efficiently aggregate
> forever (or 50 years at least).
and if your capacity between 2 asn endpoints is always able to handle
the traffic load offered, right? else you start having to
traffic-engineer... which today means deaggregate (or announce some
more specifics along with the aggregate).
I'm not sure I'd make a bet that I can always have enough capacity
between any two asn endpoints that I wouldn't need to TE.
