v6 & DSL / Cable modems
kratzers at pa.net
Fri Feb 6 14:20:50 UTC 2009
On Friday 06 February 2009 08:51:04 Jack Bates wrote:
> Joe Loiacono wrote:
> > Indeed it does. And don't forget that the most basic data object in the
> > routing table, the address itself, is 4 times as big.
> Let's also not forget, that many organizations went from multiple
> allocations to a single allocation. If we all filter anything longer
> than /32, we'll rearrange the flow of traffic that many over the years
> have altered through longer prefixes. Even I suspect I may occasionally
> have to let a /40 out now and then to alter it's traffic from the rest
> of the aggregate. Traffic comes to you as it wants to come to you. The
> only pseudo remedy that currently exists is to move some prefixes over
> to a different path. If you only have a /32, that'll be a bit hard.
> This, more than anything, is what will effect this list and the people
> on it where IPv6 is concerned. Filtering longer than /33, 35, 40? Dare
> we go to /48 and treat them as the new /24? I know for myself, traffic
> manipulation can't begin until /40 (unless I split them further apart).
I think we'll see this more and more. Our newest tier-1 IPv4 transit provider
was the first to tell us that they don't allow deaggregation. If we were
allocated /19s, we advertise /19s...
Not to start another debate, but this will certainly highlight the
deficiencies of the hop-by-hop, policy-based routing paradigm that all but
ignores the load-balancing needs of 95% (fictitious number) of networks
operating in a world which can't load-balance itself.
More information about the NANOG