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

Hi,


> 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...
>  

<?>
I beg to differ, IPv4 is the problem, completely independent of "PI" and "PA" or anything we do with IPv6, by design.

> 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!
>  
> 

And why do you have gear that got no problem with an exploding IPv4 table after exhaustion, but
can't cope with 20k IPv6 prefixes? I still don't get that. Please, someone finally explain to me
why 20k or even 100k IPv6 Prefixes in the DFZ is a problem, my lab says, even my 5year old Ciscos and Junipers
have no problems with that right now.
The default for an old Sup720 is 500k IPv4 + 250k IPv6 prefixes or so for example (IIRC, was some time ago i tested that).

Are you saying that we should not deploy IPv6?

Guys, really, cope with the reality. Don't be like politicians and create FUD.

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect