nanog mailing list archives
Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying
From: Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 18:03:41 -0800
On Nov 21, 2021, at 09:04 , Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp> wrote: Owen DeLong wrote:Uh, no. It is so because on average IPv4 is so fragmented that most providers of any size are advertising 8+ prefixes compared to a more realistic IPv6 average of 1-3.Mergers of entities having an IP address range is a primary reason of entities having multiple address ranges. As IPv6 was developed a lot later than IPv4, it has not suffered from mergers so much yet.
No, it is not. Slow start and other RIR policies around scarcity and fairness of distribution of the last crumbs are the primary contributor, with traffic engineering a somewhat distant second. Mergers are actually somewhere around 10th on the list last time I looked. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: multihoming, (continued)
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta (Nov 23)
- Re: multihoming Baldur Norddahl (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Saku Ytti (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Geoff Huston (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow (Nov 24)
- Re: multihoming Bjørn Mork (Nov 25)
- Re: multihoming Michael Thomas (Nov 25)
- Re: multihoming Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 27)
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta via NANOG (Nov 24)
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeploying Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Eliot Lear (Nov 21)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Lincoln Dale (Nov 22)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Dave Taht (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 18)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Joe Maimon (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast John Gilmore (Nov 19)
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 20)
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Owen DeLong via NANOG (Nov 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Andrews (Nov 17)