[82136] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Meyer)
Fri Jul 8 16:01:41 2005
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:20:33 -0700
From: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>
To: Alexei Roudnev <alex@relcom.net>
Cc: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>,
Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>,
David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <038c01c58315$2a414680$6401a8c0@alexh>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 09:58:56AM -0700, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
>=20
> What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (compa=
ny,
> family, enterprise) which wants it? Big routing tables? Is RT of 1,000,000
> routes BIG? I do not think so. Memory is cheap, modern routing schemas li=
ke
> CEF are effective. How many entities do we have on earth? It was a proble=
m,
> but it IS NOT ANYMORE.
One of the problems that is frequently overlooked here is
that while the size of the DFZ is more or less bounded
(although not as meaningfully so for IPv6 as it is for
IPv4), the dynamic nature of the routing table is not
bounded. Add to this that the less aggregation you have,
the more the DFZ is exposed to those dynamics. The point
here being that the memory requirements of the DFZ table
is just one of the dimensions that must be considered if
we intend the network to scale.=20
Dave
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCzWRhORgD1qCZ2KcRArKOAJ99qtBJHwcN5gyATbH+gjj2ZDna1gCePP+z
LUMlqyXyr5mwJNYOuXgQ/w8=
=o7oF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99--
