[address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR

On 05/04/2011 11:06 AM, poty at iiat.ru wrote:
> I'm not arguing about that. All equipment will have troubles in case of routing table explosions. It's my point too.

I don't expect any huge explosion. Reasons was described already in the
list. Growth will copy current IPv4 curve...

On 05/04/2011 11:10 AM, poty at iiat.ru wrote:
> Even at 200Mbit|s with 2 upstreams it is almost impossible to deal
> with full table.
On 05/04/2011 11:06 AM, poty at iiat.ru wrote:
> the main problem with PC is forwarding (calculating the interface to which the packets should go and actually put it here). In this case the distributed calculations have the biggest impact.

With proper hardware not really. It's not a problem handle 10Gbps
interface on PC these days. And I know about real deployment, where PC
is used for routing >8Gbps of traffic.

> We all know the "rule" for IPv4 about not routing longer than /24. I got this problem with some of our PI customers and have learnt, that the money here not always help. So, the filtering is not imaginary thing. Then the deaggregation would be limited (in spite of unlimited PIs).

Minimum PI assignment in IPv6 is /48 - see RIPE 512. Also assigned
anycasts in IPv6 are /48 - i expect, that /48 for IPv6 becames similar
well-know minimum rule as /24 in IPv4 world. There're legal operational
/48 assignments these days - for anycasted TLD-DNS, for example.

And /48 can be assigned from /32 PA easily, there's lot of space
available. And then easily announced into the BGP and almost nobody will
filter it (see current IPv6 table)...

Daniel