This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Policies interact
- Previous message (by thread): What you miss in IPv6.... (Was: Re: Fw: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies interact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Thu Apr 7 11:58:15 CEST 2005
Sidetracking #2:
>Savings in IPv4 space, do not carry over into IPv6. That is why
>we lose these savings. But the size of the routing table increases
>by 4 times therefore requiring 4 times as much RAM and 4 times as
>much time to send/receive full routes.
If this is the case we are looking at a poor implementation
(memory-consumption-wise), imho.
For a routing decision you don't need 32 bits for an IPv4 prefix,
and you do not need 128 bits for an IPv6 prefix.
My wild guess would be that the ratio is rather on the order of
1:1.5 than 1:4.
[ Anyone having statistics about the average length of an
IPv4 prefix? Probably in the range of (20..)21..22(..23) ]
Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): What you miss in IPv6.... (Was: Re: Fw: how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria])
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies interact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]