[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Tue May 9 16:25:26 CEST 2006
Nick Hilliard wrote: >>It merely means difference of a small constant factor. > > > I disagree. Most ISPs I know of announce a large number of non- > contiguous address blocks. With ipv6, this will drop to just one or two > in the short term; longer term, it will grow, but not even nearly at > the same rate as ipv4 allocations. According to your favourite: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-bgp-review.pdf each ISP announces, in average, about 8 blocks, which is the small constant factor. >>IPv4 routing table is already too large that its convergence is >>prohibitively slow. > > > Geoff Huston's talk about this at RIPE was rather interesting. Yes, the > routing table will grow. But that's only part of the problem; So, you have found the problem. That's enough to answer the quesiton in your previous mail of: What's the problem here?? >>Not at all. If the end-user disappears, its entries in global routing >>tables are tackled automatically. > The prefix announcement disappears, but the space is lost to the > available address pool forever (under current rules). It's not a serious issue for IPv6 and no urgent response necessary, though you said in your previous mail Problem #1 is a really serious issue and needs to be tackled urgently. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]