On 13/10/2009, at 5:46 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
I think he was pointing out that extra routes due to "slow start"
policies should not be a factor in v6. My guess is that is about
half of the "extra" routes announced today, the other half being
TE routes.
You can pretty easily figure out how man
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:46:00 EDT, Kevin Loch said:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> >
> >> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> >> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> >> 63.164.28.0/22,
Kevin Loch wrote:
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>>> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
>>> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
>>> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.8
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
but on the IPv6 side we'v
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> You get some substantial wins for the non-TE case by being able to fix
> the legacy cruft. For instance, AS1312 advertises 4 prefixes:
> 63.164.28.0/22, 128.173.0.0/16, 192.70.187.0/24, 198.82.0.0/16
> but on the IPv6 side we've just got 2001
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:40:36 PDT, David Conrad said:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer.
>
> I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in
> IPv6 than in IPv4.
You get
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 bas
In a message written on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 07:13:04PM -0700, Seth Mattinen
wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
> > VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
> > adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edg
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> It's not the RIR's fault. IPv6 wasn't designed with any kind of workable
> site multihoming. The only goal seems to have been to limit /32's to an
> "ISP" but screw you if you aren't one. There was no alternative and it's
> been how long now? PI, multih
Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 based on addressing availbili
I get asked often enough about what's in 701's IPv6 routes so I just
dumped it to a plain text file for anyone interested:
http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/as701-ipv6/
~Seth
In a message written on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 05:09:41PM -0700, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come
> much closer. Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're
> talking about a 70,000 route table today, and, likely growth in the
> 250-300,00
David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
or propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths
longer than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us
that have /48 PI space from ARIN t
Owen DeLong wrote:
From where I sit, it looks like:
a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:5
Owen DeLong wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
>
> a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
>
> f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
> BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
>
> h.root-servers.net has IPv6
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:40 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> and, likely growth in the 250-300,000 route range over the next 5-10 years.
>> CAM will probably scale faster than that.
>
> I've heard differing opinions on this (e.g., router ASICs being bot
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> From where I sit, it looks like:
..snip..
> So... Likely, Verizon customers can reach k and m root servers via IPv6
> and not the others.
or.. vzb (is now dead, it's all vz) has holes in filters to permit
prefixes of certain lengths or certain
Owen,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> With IPv6, it probably won't be the ideal 1:1 ratio, but, it will come much
> closer.
I wasn't aware people would be doing traffic engineering differently in IPv6
than in IPv4.
> Even if the average drops to 1/2, you're talking about a
From where I sit, it looks like:
a.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
BGP routing table entry for 2001:503:ba3e::/48
f.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:2f::f
BGP routing table entry for 2001:500:2f::/48
h.root-servers.net has IPv6 address 2001:500:1::803f:235
BGP ro
On Oct 12, 2009, at 4:37 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Mark,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
than
/32. Full stop. So that even includes those
On 13/10/2009, at 8:26, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
than /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /
48 PI space from ARIN that are direct cust
Mark,
On Oct 12, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept or
>> propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer than
>> /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48 PI
>> space from ARIN th
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <4ad382e4.9010...@iglou.com>, Jeff McAdams writes:
>> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
>>> horror story, but you can read it here:
>>> http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
>> At the risk of
In message <1255388942.12984.1.ca...@acer-laptop>, Bret Clark writes:
> On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:40 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > > Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
> > or
> > > propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> > than
> > >
On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 09:40 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > Verizon's policy has been related to me that they will not accept
> or
> > propogate any IPv6 route advertisements with prefix lengths longer
> than
> > /32. Full stop. So that even includes those of us that have /48
> PI
> > space fr
In message <4ad382e4.9010...@iglou.com>, Jeff McAdams writes:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> > If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
> > horror story, but you can read it here:
> > http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
>
> At the risk of sounding like I'm pi
Seth Mattinen wrote:
If you are interested, I don't want to spam the list with my Verizon
horror story, but you can read it here:
http://www.rollernet.us/wordpress/category/ipv6/
At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on, I'm in the same basically
the same boat that Seth is, except that I do
28 matches
Mail list logo
