On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Vlad Ion wrote:
I mean, is starting in v6 with the same number routes as in v4 more of an issue than not switching to IPv6 fast enough and having to deal with a constant internet user base while people deploy more and more a 2layer NAT solution?
Yes, exploding the IPv6 DFZ routing table from the few thousands to hundreds of thousands in 1-2 years would hamper IPv6 deployment because it increases the cost of the control plane signifcantly.
I'm asking because the internet deals ok with the existing number of v4 routes and having all new designated classes to ISPs subjected to the PA rule will only reduce the total number of routes or keep it the same if you include new multihoming customers.
You're talking about doubling the number of routes from the current value, if I understood you correctly, one route for IPv4 and one reciprocal route for IPv6. I'd rather assign all ISPs a /24 IPv6 space for 6RD than your proposed solution.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se