Hello, Yes, IPv4 only is a problem ;-)) Please, do not create more problem now! The limits of the content addressable memory on line card are problematic! Unfortunately the IPv4 address space trading will increase the memory size needed for IPv4 already. If you introduce IPv6 PI address space, who could stop to explode this space in the near future? Best, G�za <div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Sascha Lenz <<a href="mailto:slz@baycix.de">slz@baycix.de</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Hi, <div class="im"> > Hello, > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Sascha Lenz <<a href="mailto:slz@baycix.de">slz@baycix.de</a>> wrote: > Hi, > > [...] > > > why do you expect a "sudden spike"? You know, IPv6 adoption is painfully slow. > And actually, that's one of the points why some (most?) support the proposal, to speed that up! > > > Not the IPv4 PI address space holders create the real problems... > </div><?> I beg to differ, IPv4 is the problem, completely independent of "PI" and "PA" or anything we do with IPv6, by design. <div class="im"> > So, i'm a little confused now why this is bad. > > I don't know if this few (yes, it's "few" for me) more IPv6 prefixes will cause any problems at all, > or if bugs are trigged, no one knows. We'll have to see, or someone might want to write a paper about it indeed :-) > > And why should THIS be a money issue? If you don't plan for 20k IPv6 prefixes when buying new border routers nowadays, what the hell are you doing? > And what "border-router-grade" hardware doesn't support this few prefixes? > > I'm FAR more concerned about IPv4 table growth/deaggregation after exhaustion... > > We are concerned as well! However, the two tables share the same phisical memory! > > </div>And why do you have gear that got no problem with an exploding IPv4 table after exhaustion, but can't cope with 20k IPv6 prefixes? I still don't get that. Please, someone finally explain to me why 20k or even 100k IPv6 Prefixes in the DFZ is a problem, my lab says, even my 5year old Ciscos and Junipers have no problems with that right now. The default for an old Sup720 is 500k IPv4 + 250k IPv6 prefixes or so for example (IIRC, was some time ago i tested that). Are you saying that we should not deploy IPv6? Guys, really, cope with the reality. Don't be like politicians and create FUD. -- <div><div></div><div class="h5">Mit freundlichen Gr��en / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect </div></div></blockquote></div>