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

On Jul 1, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Turchanyi Geza wrote:

> 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!

Not to mention all the routes in the various VRFs - a large L3VPN deployment can surpass a single instance of the global v4 and v6 table combined... 

...all a pittance of course compared to the state in a big CGN.

- Mark 

>  
> 
> --
> 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/a502608f/attachment.html>