[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft



Gert Doering writes:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 02:24:20PM -0800, james woodyatt wrote:
My response to that concern is that any organization too small to win a PI allocation [..]

Just to clarify this: the problem with PI is not that it's hard to get
- the problem with PI in its current form (i.e.: "BGP routed, non -
aggregateable") is that it puts a burden on all ISP routers out there.
In IPv6, "address space wastage" is much less of a problem than in IPv4 -
but "routing table slots" could be a much more serious issue.

This has been a problem ever since we broke class full addresses, routing tables are bound to get very large as there are more multi-national and multi-carrier organizations out there. This is what justifies Cisco, Juniper, etc. in selling larger more powerful core and edge routers to the carriers and ISPs. But as I understand it, problems with BGP are out of scope for both the groups holding this discussion.