nanog mailing list archives

Re: IPv6 prefix lengths


From: Luigi Iannone <luigi () net t-labs tu-berlin de>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:04:49 +0100


On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:

Most people do not know about the "multi-homing feature" designed into
IPv6.  Most people who do, seem to agree that it may not see enough
practical use to have meaningful impact on routing table growth, which
will no longer be kept in check by a limited pool of IP addresses and
policies that make it a little difficult for a very small network to
become multi-homed.

This may be another looming IPv6 headache without a sufficient
solution to set good practices now, before deployment sky-rockets.

It's well known that IPv6 will require a scalable routing solution and that
one has not yet been developed.  I'll be surprised if there isn't more
progress out of IETF on this issue in the near future.


The RRG of the IRTF has spent the last two years on this topic. A summary of the discussed solutions can be find in:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-16

A spin off of that activity is the LISP WG in the IETF (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/lisp/charter/)

Luigi

Owen





Current thread: