IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Fri, 30 May 2014 13:46 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15051A08F3 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BaNTt9R_eOv0 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2C411A08CF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.dyn.netability.ie (089-101-195154.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.154] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.14.8/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4UDjrLb069916 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 May 2014 14:45:53 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.netability.ie: Host 089-101-195154.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.154] (may be forged) claimed to be crumpet.dyn.netability.ie
Message-ID: <53888B90.4030509@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 14:45:52 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <5384937A.90409@foobar.org> <m2iooq4oqi.wl%randy@psg.com> <5385762E.5020901@dougbarton.us> <5385AA97.1050207@fud.no> <53864DCB.5070202@gmail.com> <53865EA2.9000502@fud.no> <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <02dc01cf7c06$cc6a4bc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/P-mWZujyQeT6xSC7N1iEeS8Qyko
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PI [ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 13:46:33 -0000

On 30/05/2014 13:57, t.petch wrote:
> The fear with IPv6 is that just because one constraint on PI has been
> removed, those handing out addresses will not realise that there is
> another show-stopping constraint in the number of entries a FIB can cope
> with, 1M being the best estimate (as before, on the RRG list) with the
> foreseeable improvements to current technology.

several varieties of current generation hardware can handle 1m ipv6 fib.
We're at 17k ipv6 prefixes now, and the growth rate has been linear since
2011.  There is a fear about ipv6 fib size, not fully matched by evidence.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email