On Friday 06 February 2009 08:51:04 Jack Bates wrote: > Joe Loiacono wrote: > > Indeed it does. And don't forget that the most basic data object in the > > routing table, the address itself, is 4 times as big. > > Let's also not forget, that many organizations went from multiple > allocations to a single allocation. If we all filter anything longer > than /32, we'll rearrange the flow of traffic that many over the years > have altered through longer prefixes. Even I suspect I may occasionally > have to let a /40 out now and then to alter it's traffic from the rest > of the aggregate. Traffic comes to you as it wants to come to you. The > only pseudo remedy that currently exists is to move some prefixes over > to a different path. If you only have a /32, that'll be a bit hard. > > This, more than anything, is what will effect this list and the people > on it where IPv6 is concerned. Filtering longer than /33, 35, 40? Dare > we go to /48 and treat them as the new /24? I know for myself, traffic > manipulation can't begin until /40 (unless I split them further apart). > > > > Jack
I think we'll see this more and more. Our newest tier-1 IPv4 transit provider was the first to tell us that they don't allow deaggregation. If we were allocated /19s, we advertise /19s... Not to start another debate, but this will certainly highlight the deficiencies of the hop-by-hop, policy-based routing paradigm that all but ignores the load-balancing needs of 95% (fictitious number) of networks operating in a world which can't load-balance itself.
