On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 20:16 +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Nick Hilliard wrote:
IPv6 will be much better aggregated than ipv4, because the allocation blocks are larger, and the requirement for LIRs to request multiple non-contiguous blocks of space will be much lower.
It merely means difference of a small constant factor.
I disagree. Most ISPs I know of announce a large number of non- contiguous address blocks. With ipv6, this will drop to just one or two in the short term; longer term, it will grow, but not even nearly at the same rate as ipv4 allocations.
IPv4 routing table is already too large that its convergence is prohibitively slow.
Geoff Huston's talk about this at RIPE was rather interesting. Yes, the routing table will grow. But that's only part of the problem; a bigger part of the problem is routing churn. Take a look at pages 37 and 38 of: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-52/presentations/ripe52-plenary-bgp-r... You can see that there is a small number of organisations responsible for massive numbers of updates. I can tell you that If I were supreme ruler of the universe, these organisations would get a smack on the face.
Not at all. If the end-user disappears, its entries in global routing tables are tackled automatically.
The prefix announcement disappears, but the space is lost to the available address pool forever (under current rules). Nick