IP4 Space

Jeff McAdams jeffm at iglou.com
Fri Mar 5 14:37:46 UTC 2010


On 3/5/10 8:55 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson<andy at nosignal.org>  wrote:
>> On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli<joelja at bogus.com>  wrote:
>>>> handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long
>>>> term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4, the
>>>> prospect of having a bunch of non-aggregatable direct assignments should
>>>> be much lower...
>>> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>>
>> The opposite, but a clean slate means multihomed networks with many v4
>> prefixes may be able to be a multihomed network with just one v6 prefix.
>
> Assuming RIR policy allows multi-homers to be allocated/assigned
> enough v6 to grow appreciably without having to go back to the RIR. As
> a multi-homed end-user, I don't currently find that to be the case.

It will be the case for many mid-sized businesses.

Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6 
will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1.  I don't 
anticipate either ever having needs larger than the single initial 
allocation they have or would get.  Both are multi-homed.

-- 
Jeff McAdams
jeffm at iglou.com




More information about the NANOG mailing list