Re: IP4 Space

[Jeff McAdams <jeffm () iglou com>]

On 3/5/10 8:55 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> 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.

It will be the case for many mid-sized businesses.

Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6 
will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1.  I don't 
anticipate either ever having needs larger than the single initial 
allocation they have or would get.  Both are multi-homed.

--
Jeff McAdams
jeffm () iglou com