Re: [shim6] IPv6 multihoming

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Vlad Ion wrote:

> I mean, is starting in v6 with the same number routes as in v4 more of an
> issue than not switching to IPv6 fast enough and having to deal with a
> constant internet user base while people deploy more and more a 2layer NAT
> solution?

Yes, exploding the IPv6 DFZ routing table from the few thousands to 
hundreds of thousands in 1-2 years would hamper IPv6 deployment because it 
increases the cost of the control plane signifcantly.

> I'm asking because the internet deals ok with the existing number of v4
> routes and having all new designated classes to ISPs subjected to the PA
> rule will only reduce the total number of routes or keep it the same if you
> include new multihoming customers.

You're talking about doubling the number of routes from the current value, 
if I understood you correctly, one route for IPv4 and one reciprocal route 
for IPv6. I'd rather assign all ISPs a /24 IPv6 space for 6RD than your 
proposed solution.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]