v6 deagg

Fri Feb 20 03:29:33 UTC 2015

That might be a little more valid once we move past 2000::/3 -- at the 
moment, more like IPv4 /29s.

Alas, /48 seems to be the generally accepted maximum prefix length, so, 
yeah, this could be unfortunate.

      Jima

On 2015-02-19 20:16, manning bill wrote:
> and then there are the loons who will locally push /64 or longer, some of which may leak.
>
> even if things were sane & nothing longer than a /32 were to be in the table, are we not looking at the functional
> equivalent of v4 host routes?
>
> /bill
> PO Box 12317
> Marina del Rey, CA 90295
> 310.322.8102
>
> On 19February2015Thursday, at 19:07, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>
>> in a discussion with some fellow researchers, the subject of ipv6
>> deaggregation arose; will it be less or more than we see in ipv4?
>>
>> in http://archive.psg.com/jsac-deagg.pdf it was thought that
>> multi-homing, traffic engineering, and the /24 pollution disease were
>> the drivers.  multi-homing seems to be increasing, while the other two
>> were stable as a relative measure to total growth.
>>
>> so, at first blush, we thought v6 would be about the same as v4.
>>
>> but then we considered that v6 allocations seem to be /32s, and the
>> longest propagating route seems to be /48, leaving 16 bits with which
>> the deaggregators can play.  while in v4 it was /24s out of a /19 or
>> /20, four or five bits.
>>
>> this does not bode well.
>>
>> randy
>