[178208] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 deagg
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (manning bill)
Thu Feb 19 22:17:07 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <m2d2555lhb.wl%randy@psg.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:16:20 -0800
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
and then there are the loons who will locally push /64 or longer, some =
of which may leak.
even if things were sane & nothing longer than a /32 were to be in the =
table, are we not looking at the functional=20
equivalent of v4 host routes?
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 19February2015Thursday, at 19:07, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> in a discussion with some fellow researchers, the subject of ipv6
> deaggregation arose; will it be less or more than we see in ipv4?
>=20
> in http://archive.psg.com/jsac-deagg.pdf it was thought that
> multi-homing, traffic engineering, and the /24 pollution disease were
> the drivers. multi-homing seems to be increasing, while the other two
> were stable as a relative measure to total growth.
>=20
> so, at first blush, we thought v6 would be about the same as v4.
>=20
> but then we considered that v6 allocations seem to be /32s, and the
> longest propagating route seems to be /48, leaving 16 bits with which
> the deaggregators can play. while in v4 it was /24s out of a /19 or
> /20, four or five bits.
>=20
> this does not bode well.
>=20
> randy
