On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM, George B. <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Niels Bakker > <[email protected]> wrote: >> * [email protected] (George B.) [Tue 11 May 2010, 09:01 CEST]: >>> >>> At the present time, I would not suggest to someone that they >>> dual-stack even if the hardware can do it. An IPv6 route consumes 4x >>> the resources of an IPv4 route just to hold the address so with a >> >> [snip] >> >> blah, blah, blah. >> >> So you recommend people do nothing towards deploying IPv6 right now because >> in five years their current hardware may not hack it anymore? >> >> >> -- Niels. > > No, I recommend people use separate stacks if you are taking the full tables.
And basically the reason is ... I currently show about 320,000 routes from one upstream for v4. The MLX can handle 512,000 v4 routes in hardware. That leaves room for about 48,000 ipv6 routes provided the v4 routing table stops growing today but exactly the opposite is going to happen. As what remaining v4 addresses are broken into smaller pieces, the routing table is going to continue to grow with smaller prefixes. As of March 2010 there were 2830 routes in Hurricane Electric's IPv6 table but people have not yet begun to migrate their production networks in earnest yet. There are some end user networks (eyeballs) that have begun to move but not many of the content providers have shown up in v6 yet with all of their offerings. Again, pretty much everyone who is multihomed on v4 will be multihomed on v6 so the majority of the smaller prefixes are going to show up in both tables. Once those people begin the migration, a lot of dual-stacked routers are going to blow up. _______________________________________________ foundry-nsp mailing list [email protected] http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
