On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes: 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16 but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001:468:c80::/48.
And we're currently advertising *more* address space in one /48 than we are in the 4 IPv4 prefixes - we have a large chunk of wireless network that is currently NAT'ed into the 172.31 space because we simply ran out of room in our 2 /16s - but we give those users globally routed IPv6 addresses.
I suggest you're not yet doing enough IPv6 traffic to have to care about IPv6 TE.
I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start" policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being TE routes.
Exactly. We have 4 prefixes only because we got slow-started and similar hysterical raisins, we don't use those for TE at all. If we wanted to do any globally visible TE that actually made a difference, we'd have to announce a more-specific out of one of the /16s anyhow, since that's where all our traffic generators/sinks are (and probably a matching more-specific out of our v6 /48). So we're always going to have 4+N on the IPv4 and 1+N on the IPv6 side. (And if we'd gotten more address space for that wireless net, we'd be at 5+N rather than 4+N).