[address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth

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: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20110701/5fb6cf4a/attachment.html>