multihoming

Tue Nov 23 15:36:56 UTC 2021

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:49 AM Masataka Ohta
<mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
>  > Not everyone are Apple, "hp"[0] or MIT, where initial
>  > allocation still is mostly sufficient.
>
> The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially,
> not because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of
> multihoming.
>
> As such, if entities requiring IPv4 multihoming will also
> require IPv6 multihoming, the numbers of routing table
> entries will be same.
>
> The proper solution is to have end to end multihoming:
>
>         https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-02.txt

I'd never read that. We'd made openwrt in particular use "source
specific routing" for ipv6 by default,
many years ago, but I don't know to what extent that facility is used.

ip route from a:b:c:d:/64 via dev A
ip route from a:b:d:d:/64 via dev B

> > Your reasoning is correct, but the size of the math matters more.
>
> Indeed, with the current operational practice. global IPv4
> routing table size is bounded below 16M. OTOH, that for
> IPv6 is unbounded.
>
>                                                 Masataka Ohta
>

-- 
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC