nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 deagg
From: manning bill <bmanning () isi edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 19:16:20 -0800
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 () 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
Current thread:
- v6 deagg Randy Bush (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg manning bill (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Jima (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Brent Jones (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Owen DeLong (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Christopher Morrow (Feb 24)
- Re: v6 deagg Jima (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg manning bill (Feb 19)
- Re: v6 deagg Saku Ytti (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Nikolay Shopik (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Jack Bates (Feb 20)
- Re: v6 deagg Måns Nilsson (Feb 21)
- Re: v6 deagg Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 20)