[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

Keith Medcalf kmedcalf at dessus.com
Mon Aug 20 20:21:05 EDT 2007


> >	risk of overwhelming the routing system? guess i have to 
> >	agree w/ you there... but surely its not a risk but a dead
> >	certainty.

> >	the routing system is "dead man walking" with regard to
> >	IPv6. some kind soul pointed out the magnitude of 128 bits...
> >	any of the current delegation metrics for which IPv6 is 
> >	handed out, the current routing system will fail.

> Why?  Does introducing IPv6 create billions of extra hosts that
> need to have IP numbers assigned?

And more to the point:  If every holder of a IPv4 routing slot (whether ISP or, like me, a legacy PI /24 holder) was "granted" a /28 and they were all routed in the DFZ, do you believe that the IPv6 table would contain any more entries than it currently does, if the current IPv4 rules were immediately thereafter imposed on future IPv6 and ASN allocations/assignments (with changes re size in that all IPv6 are /28).

Would not the table merely double in size (entry-wise that is)?

Could this be handled in the DFZ at present?  If it can then there are no worries at all.  You then need to evaluate if such a happening would be a best-case or a worst-case outcome ... or perhaps something in between that can be worked with.

If this could not be handled in the DFZ at present, then there is a clear need to 'guide' the migration toward a more acceptable end-point.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list