Owen DeLong wrote:
Consider, for example AS7922
COMCAST is not a good example.
but, rather organic customer growth and RIR applications over time.
No, if you know theory and practice of how additional address ranges are allocated as a result of growth, you could have noticed that the large number of prefixes of COMCAST should mostly be a result of mergers, where merged parts won't renumber their hosts.
That’s the kind of prefix growth we should be able to mostly avoid in IPv6 that is rather rampant in IPv4.
Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
The following page by Geoff Huston is better than your delusion. http://www.potaroo.net/ispcolumn/2001-03-bgp.html What is driving this recent change to exponential growth of the routing table? In a word, multi-homing.
With the current routing practice, the number will increase to 14M with IPv4 and a lot more than that with IPv6.
I’m curious as to why you think that the number is bounded at 14M for IPv4 and why you think there will be so many more multi homed sites in IPv6?
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
The problem is serious especially because Moore's law is ending.
People have been claiming that Moore's law is at an end longer than we have been pushing for IPv6 deployment.
I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology trend. Masataka Ohta