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

On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Sascha Lenz wrote:

> 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).

20k isn't a problem, 100k isn't really a problem, potentially 5M 30 years 
down the line might be a problem, 50M is most likely a problem.

Right now the PI administration and implementation process is a barrier 
for entry, but if this changes then the amount of people who will want 
(and will get) PI might explode. Therefore the situation needs to be 
monitored, because having all core routers in the world keep track of 
every little entity who wants to redundantly connect to the Internet isn't 
going to scale.

The real solution is to have end systems handle session handover between 
multiple addresses it has, but there seems to be pitifully little traction 
for that.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se