isabeldias1 at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 23 11:00:26 CDT 2010
"IPv6 routing table 7-10 times smaller than the IPv4 routing table"
a bit of old stuff to get to the bottom line....
----- Original Message ----
From: Mark Newton <newton at internode.com.au>
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Tue, March 23, 2010 5:27:27 AM
Subject: Re: IP4 Space
On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multihomers.
> That's generally a good thing.
Puzzled: How does the IPv6 routing table get smaller?
There's currently social pressure against deaggregation, but given time
why do you think the same drivers that lead to v4 deaggregation won't also
lead to v6 deaggregation?
(small multihomers means more discontiguous blocks of PI space too, right?)
Mark Newton Email: newton at internode.com.au (W)
Network Engineer Email: newton at atdot.dotat.org (H)
Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
More information about the NANOG