On 3/5/10 8:55 AM, Tim Durack wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:22 AM, Andy Davidson<andy@nosignal.org> wrote:
On 04/03/2010 19:30, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli<joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
handling the v6 table is not currently hard (~2600 prefixes) while long term the temptation to do TE is roughly that same in v6 as in v4, the prospect of having a bunch of non-aggregatable direct assignments should be much lower... Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
The opposite, but a clean slate means multihomed networks with many v4 prefixes may be able to be a multihomed network with just one v6 prefix.
Assuming RIR policy allows multi-homers to be allocated/assigned enough v6 to grow appreciably without having to go back to the RIR. As a multi-homed end-user, I don't currently find that to be the case.
It will be the case for many mid-sized businesses. Both my previous and current employer, in switching from IPv4 to IPv6 will drop from 7 and 4 advertisements (fully aggregated) to 1. I don't anticipate either ever having needs larger than the single initial allocation they have or would get. Both are multi-homed. -- Jeff McAdams jeffm@iglou.com