On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:27 PM, Mark Newton wrote: >> On 23/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> With the smaller routing table afforded by IPv6, this will be less >>> expensive. As a result, I suspect there will be more IPv6 small multihomers. >>> That's generally a good thing. >> >> Puzzled: How does the IPv6 routing table get smaller? >> > Compared to IPv4? Because we don't do slow start, so, major providers won't > be > advertising 50-5,000 prefixes for a single autonomous system.
On the other hand, smaller ASes still announce the same number, the hardware resource consumption for an IPv6 route is at least double that of an IPv4 entry, RIR policy implies more bits for TE disaggregation than is often possible in IPv4 and dual-stack means that the IPv6 routing table is strictly additive to the IPv4 routing table for the foreseeable future. Your thesis has some weaknesses. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
