nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:07:45 +0000 (GMT)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote:
But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional, proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETFthere is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current path is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes?Doubtful. The IETF was operating under the impression that having a scalable routing subsystem was paramount. Do you think operators can be made to see that light?
They've been asking for that as well I think. I certainly don't want to have 1M+ routes for JUST the Internet to worry about anytime soon, I'd hate to see over 300k for real Internet routes anytime soon :( Much of today's hardware doesn't seem so happy around that number :( Operators and IETF need to hit a middle ground. Perhaps that middle ground is a mix of these 2 things? Routing hardware will certainly scale to larger than today's table, other factors are driving that, will it scale to 1B prefixes or 1T prefixes? I'm not able to speculate on that... I can see an immediate need to get over 500k though, and not from ipv6 nor lack of shim, and I'm probably shooting low.
Implementing IPv6 multihoming the "conventional" way guarantees that we end up with one prefix per site, and as the need for multihoming reaches deeper into the population, the growth rate of the routing table would surpass even the growth rate of the Internet itself.
I'm not sure I agree that the end state is 100% multihoming. I can certainly agree that more multihoming is coming. Many more people are pushing for multihoming today than in previous years, apparently telco instability (financial not technical) is/has driven this :) (among other things I'm sure) Again, I don't know what the end state size is, I agree it's bigger than today, I think it's probably smaller than infinity.
The alternative is a multihoming scheme that does not require a prefix per site. But that doesn't match the stated requirement of 'conventional', 'proven', 'working' [sic], 'feature-complete'.
whichever solution is the end solution there needs to be the capability to solve today's problems in tomorrow's world. The current proposal I think doesn't capture all of today's problems. If the set of missing solutions were going to magically go away then alls good... I can't see link failure (not complete failure of the path, partial path failure) or congestion or suboptimal paths going away though. (just to name a few) -Chris
Current thread:
- Re: non-provider aggregation, was: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: non-provider aggregation, was: IPv6 news Iljitsch van Beijnum (Oct 19)
- Re: non-provider aggregation, was: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 19)
- Re: IPv6 news Gary E. Miller (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Phillip Vandry (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news william(at)elan.net (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Jakma (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Stephane Bortzmeyer (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Simon Lyall (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 15)