OMB: IPv6 by June 2008

Fri Jul 8 22:52:35 UTC 2005

Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:08:08AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> 
>>On the other hand a large DFZ routing table would simply dampen its
>>growth by itself.  If it gets to costly to multihome because of the
>>hardware requirements only few would be able to so.  Ergo we have a
>>negative feedback system here keeping itself in check.  Case solved
>>and closed.
> 
> Multihomed end sites usually get away with receiving only default route
> or some partial routes from their upstreams. So technically you can
> BGP multihome with Cisco 1600 or even smaller easily (dunno where BGP
> support is starting to become available).

Technically yes, practically no.  At least not for the purposes people
normally want to multihome.

-- 
Andre