How Not to Multihome

Mon Oct 8 23:14:08 UTC 2007

please elaborate.  My knowledge of IPv6 is admittedly lacking, but I 
always assumed that the routing tables would be much larger if the 
internet were to convert from IPv4 due to the sheer number of networks 
available.

Joel Jaeggli <joelja at bogus.com> 
Sent by: owner-nanog at merit.edu
10/08/2007 06:49 PM

To
Keegan.Holley at sungard.com
cc
Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>, nanog <nanog at merit.edu>, 
owner-nanog at merit.edu, "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner at cluebyfour.org>
Subject
Re: How Not to Multihome

Keegan.Holley at sungard.com wrote:
> 
> I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those
> same routers with ipv6 routes.

All 970 of them?

joelja

> 
> 
> *Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>*
> Sent by: owner-nanog at merit.edu
> 
> 10/08/2007 06:10 PM
> 
> 
> To
>                "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner at cluebyfour.org>
> cc
>                nanog <nanog at merit.edu>
> Subject
>                Re: How Not to Multihome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer originate their own
>> announcements is definitely the Right Way to go.
> 
> it is interesting, and worrysome, to consider this in light of likely
> growth in the routing table (ref ipv4 free pool run out discussion) and
> vendors' inability to handle large ribs and fibs on enterprise class
> routers.
> 
> randy
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20071008/49316899/attachment.html>