[f-nsp] NetIron MLX-4 vs Juniper MX240

[Scott T. Cameron]

Hey, you nailed me on the head!

I have a /48 from ARIN and tried to advertise a /51 in datacenter 1 and a
/51 in datacenter 2.  Upstream, in massive quantity, rejected all
advertisements < /48.

Which, unfortunately, is a problem.  That means if I want to use my own
address space in two datacenters, I have to go get another /48 for the other
datacenter.  This will indeed grow the routing table, when I have no need
for so much address space.

Scott

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 4:31 AM, George B. <georgeb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Rolf Hanßen <nsp at rhanssen.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > it looks to me you calculate with an amount of v6 routes similar to the
> > number of v4 routes today and I thinks that this won't happen.
> > For example: RIPE has assigned 5x IPv4 PA networks to us during the last
> > 10 years but we only use one /32 v6 network. We furthermore had to splitt
> > up those v4 assignments because we have a split network with several
> > independent locations not connected together. This increased the number
> of
> > prefixes we announce very fast.
> > So the amount of v6 prefixes created from us will be much lower and I
> > think other providers may have similar spaces they use.
> > Even if you enable v6 for all networks currently using v4 I think total
> > amount will keep below 100k routes.
> >
> > kind regards
> > Rolf
>
> For people who can qualify for a /32, particularly those who grew late
> in the game, yes, there will be considerable consolidation.  What I
> was more concerned about was smaller end user networks who currently
> have a multi-homed /20 or smaller allocation that will be getting a
> /44 or smaller v6 allocation and will keep both the v4 and v6
> addresses.
>
> There are a lot of multi-homed /24 nets out there that will become a
> /24 v4 and a /48 v6 announcement. I suppose the vendors could help
> things somewhat by not putting the entire 128 bits into hardware.
> There is really no reason to have more than 64 bits for routing as the
> last 64 bits are "supposed" to be host IPs ... but how many out there
> are using /127 for point-to-points between routers?   You aren't
> "supposed" to subnet anything smaller than a /64 but many do.
>
> One thing I have noticed is that some networks are apparently
> filtering anything smaller than a /32 from PA space but allowing
> smaller nets from PI space designed for that purpose (down to a /48, I
> think).  Anyone trying to multi-home a /64 is going to have a hard go
> of it, I think, but someone is bound to try!
>
> George
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundry-nsp mailing list
> foundry-nsp at puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/foundry-nsp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/foundry-nsp/attachments/20100512/bee3060b/attachment.html>