IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
owen at delong.com
Tue Oct 26 17:48:58 CDT 2010
It's very interesting to me that wee keep discussing RIRs other than ARIN when
talking about allocation policies and issues for NANOG.
The NA in NANOG puts the vast majority of it within the ARIN service region. The
only other RIR which has territory within NA has not even been mentioned until
now and that is LACNIC. (I'm afraid I am not yet familiar with their current IPv6
policies or practices).
On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Yes indeed, but you don't have to justify much if you only ask for the minimum, if you want more you need to ask...
> Also, and this I like less, your membership is calculated from the number of IPs you have... I think in short $$=max(1180x1.3(log2(Addresses in /32)-8),Feev6 = 1180x1.3(log2(Addresses in /56)-22)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Carpenter" <rcarpen at network1.net>
> To: "Franck Martin" <franck at genius.com>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 October, 2010 10:48:13 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing table will be bloated?
> It would be nice as a start, but does not really take into consideration future expansion needs.
> I would think that you could draw some parallels, though.
> Something like:
> v4 /16 ~ v6 /32
> v4 /12 ~ v6 /28
> v4 /8 ~ v6 /24
> I know it we don't want to equate v4 and v6, but it may help as a guideline for the size of the customer base.
More information about the NANOG