Re: IP4 Space

[isabel dias <isabeldias1 () yahoo com>]

"IPv6 routing table 7-10 times smaller than the IPv4 routing table"
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2009-May/014240.html


:-)
  

a bit of old stuff to get to the bottom line....  

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-49/presentations/ripe49-plenary-bgp.pdf

 


----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Newton <newton () internode com au>
To: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog () nanog org>
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 5:27:27 AM
Subject: Re: IP4 Space


On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be 
> more IPv6 small multihomers.
> That's generally a good thing.

Puzzled:  How does the IPv6 routing table get smaller?

There's currently social pressure against deaggregation, but given time
why do you think the same drivers that lead to v4 deaggregation won't also
lead to v6 deaggregation?

(small multihomers means more discontiguous blocks of PI space too, right?)

  - mark

--
Mark Newton                              Email:  newton () internode com au (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:  newton () atdot dotat org  (H)
Internode Pty Ltd                        Desk:  +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223