> On Nov 21, 2021, at 09:04 , Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> > wrote: > > Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Uh, no. It is so because on average IPv4 is so fragmented that most >> providers of any size are advertising 8+ prefixes compared to a more >> realistic IPv6 average of 1-3. > > Mergers of entities having an IP address range is a primary reason > of entities having multiple address ranges. As IPv6 was > developed a lot later than IPv4, it has not suffered from > mergers so much yet. No, it is not. Slow start and other RIR policies around scarcity and fairness of distribution of the last crumbs are the primary contributor, with traffic engineering a somewhat distant second. Mergers are actually somewhere around 10th on the list last time I looked. Owen
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeployi... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeployi... Masataka Ohta
- multihoming Dave Taht
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming Baldur Norddahl
- Re: multihoming Saku Ytti
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow
- Re: multihoming Geoff Huston
- Re: multihoming Christopher Morrow
- Re: multihoming Masataka Ohta via NANOG
- Re: is ipv6 fast, was silly Redeployi... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 2... Eliot Lear
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 2... Lincoln Dale
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as un... Dave Taht
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 a... Joe Maimon
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 a... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127... Joe Maimon
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 2... John Gilmore
- Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 2... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: WKBI #586, Redploying most of 127/8 as un... Owen DeLong via NANOG
- Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public Mark Andrews