[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6

[Owen DeLong]

One of the other key factors in Jason's numbers is the assumption that all
the
core routers have to carry full v4 and full v6 tables.  I suspect this is
actually an unlikely scenario.  I suspect that, instead, many large ISPs
will end up building out v6 infrastructure on parallel routers and that the
tables will end up being split between different routers, especially if
v6 starts to grow anywhere near the lines Jason indicates.

Leaving the current routers running v4 while deploying new stuff to handle
the increasing v6 load is an additional cost, but, generally not a
prohibitive
one in most scenarios I've looked at for large scale deployments.  Primary
problem is that it is not viable until v6 starts to become a significant
portion of the network and/or revenue.  Customer-facing routers will
probably still need both, but, there are several ways to address this.
Most customer facing routers don't have to have full tables, and, for the
ones that do, there are several alternatives to the idea of a full routing
table for both protocols on one router.

Owen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060428/e4ebcde0/attachment.sig>