[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

[David Conrad]

Leo,

On Jun 18, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> a) huh?  Last I checked, there were 800 IPv6 prefixes being routed
>
> Entirely the wrong metric.
...
> There will be
> somewhere between the number of AS's allocated and the number of
> current IPv4 routes in the DFZ in the future IPv6 DFZ, and that's
> the interesting number.

So, between 60K and 250K additional routes, which (according to the  
router vendors) is still 1/4th what today's routers can handle.  That  
would appear to double the size of the routing table over a 2 to 3  
year period, not be a "jump by at least one order of magnitude  
overnight, perhaps closer to two orders of magnitude."

> And yet, the major operators keep standing up and telling the RIR
> community it's BS.

Clearly there is a disconnect.  From my perspective, operators who  
are concerned have been completely drowned out by those who (for  
whatever reason) are not concerned. If major operators actually  
believe what the router vendors is saying is BS, then they should  
probably stop preaching to the choir in the RIR community and make  
their feelings known more forcefully in places like NANOG (I wasn't  
there, did anyone shoot down Scudder's presentation?) and the IETF.

> If we put a policy like this in place before the rush
> to get IPv6 space really hits in a big way I think you would find
> the IPv6 DFZ would surpass the IPv4 DFZ in a matter of 2-3 years
> after the rush starts.

Aside from the fact that the IPv6 DFZ surpassing the IPv4 DFZ is a  
mere doubling and there is (supposedly) sufficient headroom in  
routers today, much less 2 to 3 years from now, what would drive the  
rush for IPv6 space?  I am skeptical that simply it's availability  
(particularly if the $100/year fee was recurrent).  IPv6 would need  
to provide something that IPv4+NAT doesn't.

Rgds,
-drc