[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[6bone] IPv6 routing table size

> (3) The actually size of v6 routing table has much to do with
> RIR's v6 allocation policy. Accroding to recent policy which
> will take effect in July, RIR is going to allocate /32 as
> minimal to v6 service provider, and v6 service provider will
> assign /48 to end site. If the end-site has its own AS
> number, should we let the /48 appear in global routing table ?

No. This is not the main issue, actually. One of the strong incentives
organizations multihome is not to be tied to a specific ISP. There might
be some PA site prefixes leaks, but we do not expect these to be out of
control because a) they do not provide what multihomers want b) it would
be necessary to pay the other ISPs to advertise their competitor's

> (4) Considering the multi-homing environment, when a end-site get
> a /48 from providerA, get a second /48 from providerB, and get a
> third /48 from providerC, and no matter this end-site has AS
> number or not, If the end-site want to take full use of the three
> address space and the three links, we have to let the three
> prefixes to appear in global routing table.

This scenario is not even on the table. Three times worse than PI is not
going to happen.

The main issue regarding the size of the routing table is everyone
becoming a LIR.