North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: How Not to Multihome

  • From: Keegan . Holley
  • Date: Mon Oct 08 19:26:32 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 <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]

10/08/2007 06:49 PM

To
[email protected]
cc
Randy Bush <[email protected]>, nanog <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Justin M. Streiner" <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: How Not to Multihome






[email protected] 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 <[email protected]>*
> Sent by: [email protected]
>
> 10/08/2007 06:10 PM
>
>                  
> To
>                  "Justin M. Streiner" <[email protected]>
> cc
>                  nanog <[email protected]>
> 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
>
>
>