Re: v6 deagg

[Brent Jones <brent () brentrjones com>]

Instead, we may find network equipment vendors might ship with
larger/faster TCAM, and faster processing to handle increasing routing
table demands.
We've been hearing "the end is nigh!" for a decade, and as far as I can
tell, we are no closer to the end than when we started.
Maybe some equipment refresh cycles will increase, and some providers will
have to make a choice to upgrade sooner than later.

But, as network engineers and architects, surely we all know that nothing
is static, and growth will continue to accelerate. Better be ready, or some
of us will be left behind.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Jima <nanog () jima us> wrote:

> That might be a little more valid once we move past 2000::/3 -- at the
> moment, more like IPv4 /29s.
>
> Alas, /48 seems to be the generally accepted maximum prefix length, so,
> yeah, this could be unfortunate.
>
>      Jima
>
>
> On 2015-02-19 20:16, manning bill wrote:
>
> > 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
> > 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?
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > so, at first blush, we thought v6 would be about the same as v4.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > this does not bode well.
> > >
> > > randy


-- 
Brent Jones
brent () brentrjones com