nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy
From: David Conrad <drc () virtualized org>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 -0700
Owen, On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come much closer.
I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in IPv6 than in IPv4.
Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're talking about a 70,000 route table today,
How big are IPv6 objects in CAMs again?
and, likely growth in the 250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years. CAM will probably scale faster than that.
I've heard differing opinions on this (e.g., router ASICs being both some of the most complicated ASICs ever made and being non-commodity parts hence not necessarily following Moore's Law, pin density in those ASICs reaching a point where you start running into crosstalk problems, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria, etc). I'm not a hardware guy so I'll just stare blankly.
The problematic time scale is that time where we have to support dual stack for a majority of the network. That's what will really stress the CAM as the IPv6 table becomes meaningfully large (but not huge) and the IPv4 table cannot yet be retired.
Right. And when are we planning on retiring IPv4 again? Interestingly, if you're an ISP and you don't want to redeploy your insanely expensive high end routers with the huge CAMs, you might look to see which prefixes you could drop that would cause the least impact to the majority of your customers. In this light, filtering the crap out of IPv6 would appear to make business sense.
I think eventually, we're going to have to look at moving to an ID/Locator split method in the IDR realm.
The big challenge with this is backwards compatibility... Regards, -drc
Current thread:
- Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering], (continued)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Jeff McAdams (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Mark Andrews (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Bret Clark (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Mark Andrews (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy David Conrad (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Owen DeLong (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy David Conrad (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Christopher Morrow (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Adrian Chadd (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Kevin Loch (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Nathan Ward (Oct 13)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Jeff McAdams (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Leo Bicknell (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Seth Mattinen (Oct 12)
- Re: IPv6 internet broken, Verizon route prefix length policy Adrian Chadd (Oct 12)