[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IP4 Space
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> Compared to IPv4? ?Because we don't do slow start, so, major providers won't be
> advertising 50-5,000 prefixes for a single autonomous system.
On the other hand, smaller ASes still announce the same number, the
hardware resource consumption for an IPv6 route is at least double
that of an IPv4 entry, RIR policy implies more bits for TE
disaggregation than is often possible in IPv4 and dual-stack means
that the IPv6 routing table is strictly additive to the IPv4 routing
table for the foreseeable future. Your thesis has some weaknesses.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
- Follow-Ups:
- IP4 Space
- From: tdurack at gmail.com (Tim Durack)
- IP4 Space
- From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
- References:
- IP4 Space
- From: tmagill at providecommerce.com (Thomas Magill)
- IP4 Space
- From: sob at academ.com (Stan Barber)
- IP4 Space
- From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
- IP4 Space
- From: sob at academ.com (Stan Barber)
- IP4 Space
- From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)
- IP4 Space
- From: sob at academ.com (Stan Barber)
- IP4 Space
- From: dts at senie.com (Daniel Senie)
- IP4 Space
- From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
- IP4 Space
- From: newton at internode.com.au (Mark Newton)
- IP4 Space
- From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)