nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP4 Space
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:12:01 -0800
On 03/04/2010 10:52 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
2. Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. The most obvious answer is that some hardware may not handle it... How is that hardware going to handle an IP6 table then? I have had several occasions where functionally I needed to advertise for different sites but only needed 20-30 addresses which is a complete waste of a /24. How hard would it be to start allowing /25s when compared to trying to roll out IP6?
prefix deaggregatation beyond /24 is probably inevitable but that doesn't mean you want people to burn routing table slots on your equipment for /28s. That routing table slot is an externality that everyone has to pay for. By holding the line to the extent that it is held, a cap of the growth rate of your dfz fib that is roughly congruent with rir policy. handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4, the prospect of having a bunch of non-aggregatable direct assignments should be much lower...
Current thread:
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie, (continued)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Saku Ytti (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Mark Andrews (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Saku Ytti (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Saku Ytti (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Owen DeLong (Mar 06)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space - the lie Mark Newton (Mar 07)
- Re: IP4 Space Stan Barber (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Steve Bertrand (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space Christopher Morrow (Mar 04)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space Joel Jaeggli (Mar 05)
- Re: IP4 Space William Herrin (Mar 05)