On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:49 AM Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Mans Nilsson wrote:
Not everyone are Apple, "hp"[0] or MIT, where initial allocation still is mostly sufficient.
The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially, not because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of multihoming.
As such, if entities requiring IPv4 multihoming will also require IPv6 multihoming, the numbers of routing table entries will be same.
The proper solution is to have end to end multihoming:
I'd never read that. We'd made openwrt in particular use "source specific routing" for ipv6 by default, many years ago, but I don't know to what extent that facility is used. ip route from a:b:c:d:/64 via dev A ip route from a:b:d:d:/64 via dev B
Your reasoning is correct, but the size of the math matters more.
Indeed, with the current operational practice. global IPv4 routing table size is bounded below 16M. OTOH, that for IPv6 is unbounded.
Masataka Ohta
-- I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC