IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 30 May 2014 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
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 C23BC1A7009 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 4FMX18J30FfY for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com (mail-we0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B20C1A08FA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id p10so2050184wes.34 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8yq/7K5QTWLzKyHRKU14Hd3HEeKzbYj3qEf5zD5FIjs=; b=E27eP+XwUEUuzluj7uK9iXPlWfQYpLXIAbkh9LQL9pYsaI1s+FneGthMU7xEUxpnkf buAbtGpJpKHPUINyeeUUVt9JSaHLEmClQALKLzwDbtpCJpUd60KY0PvGmgrr4Od0lj0H 9U4SL+mq8qiJ8SVsev7kAvshE/XSDVj2qy6eUjso9wdSjl22Wp2JsP+tyfv46mxTepQ3 fa6/NtrFesIHmeJUiOqdX9azoxgNzjkY2xeN4DzGKUqfkuv+6LLyEMcIkEdbqLFzm4Tj 0JipoxeIKb7cq+J+JnxHDhzgF4V2v37GxWONI0mECUNVgTy8xDCJ/nXO56eFWQckSB1D nweQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.20.210 with SMTP id p18mr609425wie.8.1401458021165; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.39.1 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.39.1 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53888B90.4030509@foobar.org>
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> <53888B90.4030509@foobar.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 06:53:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGRQ8+yC1iHY3noV4jcMPYTS_UjQx-E8XOiT=sXu1XxY6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec53d5c61850cb204fa9e5fef"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZK3PNeflq4DMcuLxGgmUYB8gUSY
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
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 13:53:47 -0000

On May 30, 2014 6:46 AM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
>
> 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
>

Not my *new* gear. And not while running a full ipv4 table too.

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email