[address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Turchanyi Geza
turchanyi.geza at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 12:46:49 CEST 2011
Hello, On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Sascha Lenz <slz at baycix.de> wrote: > Hi, > > [...] > > > why do you expect a "sudden spike"? You know, IPv6 adoption is painfully > slow. > And actually, that's one of the points why some (most?) support the > proposal, to speed that up! > > Not the IPv4 PI address space holders create the real problems... > So, i'm a little confused now why this is bad. > > I don't know if this few (yes, it's "few" for me) more IPv6 prefixes will > cause any problems at all, > or if bugs are trigged, no one knows. We'll have to see, or someone might > want to write a paper about it indeed :-) > > And why should THIS be a money issue? If you don't plan for 20k IPv6 > prefixes when buying new border routers nowadays, what the hell are you > doing? > And what "border-router-grade" hardware doesn't support this few prefixes? > > I'm FAR more concerned about IPv4 table growth/deaggregation after > exhaustion... > We are concerned as well! However, the two tables share the same phisical memory! > > -- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards > > Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] > Senior System- & Network Architect > > Géza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110701/5fb6cf4a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]