Re: IP4 Space

[Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com>]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org> wrote:
> On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:
> > > 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...
> > Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>
> The opposite, but a clean slate means multihomed networks with many v4
> prefixes may be able to be a multihomed network with just one v6 prefix.

Assuming RIR policy allows multi-homers to be allocated/assigned
enough v6 to grow appreciably without having to go back to the RIR. As
a multi-homed end-user, I don't currently find that to be the case.

-- 
Tim:>