Re: How Not to Multihome

[Keegan.Holley () sungard com]

please elaborate.  My knowledge of IPv6 is admittedly lacking, but I 
always assumed that the routing tables would be much larger if the 
internet were to convert from IPv4 due to the sheer number of networks 
available.





Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> 
Sent by: owner-nanog () merit edu
10/08/2007 06:49 PM

To
Keegan.Holley () sungard com
cc
Randy Bush <randy () psg com>, nanog <nanog () merit edu>, 
owner-nanog () merit edu, "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Subject
Re: How Not to Multihome







Keegan.Holley () sungard com wrote:
> I'm really interested to see what happens when we start filling those
> same routers with ipv6 routes.

All 970 of them?

joelja

> *Randy Bush <randy () psg com>*
> Sent by: owner-nanog () merit edu
>
> 10/08/2007 06:10 PM
>
>
> To
>                "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
> cc
>                nanog <nanog () merit edu>
> Subject
>                Re: How Not to Multihome
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's not 'law' per se, but having the customer originate their own
> > announcements is definitely the Right Way to go.
>
> it is interesting, and worrysome, to consider this in light of likely
> growth in the routing table (ref ipv4 free pool run out discussion) and
> vendors' inability to handle large ribs and fibs on enterprise class
> routers.
>
> randy