[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    (IPng 1549) Re: Proposed v6 Addressing, open ended routing tables
From:       Michael Gersten <michael () stb ! info ! com>
Date:       1996-03-13 15:55:00
[Download RAW message or body]

I had not seen 1887 before; thank you for pointing it out.
Unfortunately, none of draft-ietf-ipngwg-unicast-addr-fmt-03.txt,
1884, nor 1887 make any attempt to address the issue of routing
table size. (1887 points out some of the issues involved, but
fails to recommend any specific sizes.) The problem that was
pointed out was that a registry can make N=20, or some other
large amount, and flood the routing tables.

I'm arguing that a maximum N of 10 is fine, and that initially
we can specify a maximum N of 8, with the provision that at a
later time, the next two bits (which will initially be 0) may be
used to give another 3X additional addresses. This keeps the
routing tables from getting large (tops out around 30K entries,
compared to the v4 size of 60K entries), and does not restrict any
further subdivisions of the addressing space. It also does not
prevent a registry from using a smaller N than that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Mailing List		      FTP archive: ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ipng
IPng Home Page:          	      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]