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:
- IPv6 prefix lengths Richard Barnes (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths ML (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Mark Andrews (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Randy Carpenter (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Owen DeLong (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths William Pitcock (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Cameron Byrne (Jan 12)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Jeff Wheeler (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Mohacsi Janos (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Luigi Iannone (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Owen DeLong (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Michiel Klaver (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths Joel Jaeggli (Jan 13)
- Re: IPv6 prefix lengths ML (Jan 12)