Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Vest <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Danny McPherson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really think that the conversation about ipv4/ipv6 and route-scaling
>>>> has to understand that for the foreseeable future we're going to have
>>>> to deal with both ip protocols... and in 25-30 (maybe more) years a
>>>> third protocol.
>>>
>>> Indeed, hence my "long term transitional coexistence" phrasing :-)
>>
>> Sorry, I meant 'there is no transition, there is only coexistence'
>> (from my perspective at least that seems to be what'll happen, of
>> course no crystal balls and only 5 computers ever will be needed.)
>>
>> -Chris
>> (and I get that you == danny get this, but for the record I think we
>> should be clear that ipv4 ain't going away, ever)
>
> Does "ain't going away" mean that you cannot envision any time in the future in which, say, IPv4 has the same impact on scalability concerns as RFC1918 has today?

1918 does have scaling implications, if you carry it as internal
routes... at some ISP's internal routes are ~30% of the total table
size seen. It's not the same cost for everyone, but neither is a
single prefix in the global table :(

I also suspect (as I said before) we'll see longer than /24 routes in
the global table (not leaks/mistakes) before this is all over. I don't
like that concept, but I don't see an outcome that doesn't include
this.

-chris