On 6-apr-05, at 1:37, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
There is no such thing as technical limitations/reasons, only economical.
Nobody can transport an IP packet faster than 300000 km/s (well, more like 200000 km/s in practice) no matter how much money they have.
I don't see an economical reason for why normal network providers shouldn't be able to handle 500,000 IPv6 routes.
It's too expensive. Don't forget that a typical router takes a bunch of full feeds (or equivalent in partial feeds) from different peers, so 0.5M routes probably means your router needs to support 2 - 5 M BGP routes. And of course you need a FIB that's large enough and can be searched fast enough.
Existing operators may need to upgrade something or they have to downgrade to singlehoming if they do not wish to upgrade.
It's not just the multihomers that need a router that supports a full BGP table. Medium-sized and larger ISPs need to have routers that hold full tables too, they don't have a choice.
With that in mind, isn't this what you are looking for: A natural way to limit the amount of multihomed autonomous systems/amount of prefixes without enforcing unreasonable policies?
That's why I proposed "provider-internal aggregation based on geography" but this fell on deaf ears. Go for the quick fix PI block and let someone else clean up the mess seems to be the prevailing attitude.
IPv6 won't survive if you keep having silly policies (and I still think that includes the fixed size /48 customer assignment policy).
What's silly about that? A fixed prefix length is very useful because that way you only have to renumber the top 48 bits when you switch ISPs. This makes life much easier.