On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:49 AM Masataka Ohta <mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > > Mans Nilsson wrote: > > > Not everyone are Apple, "hp"[0] or MIT, where initial > > allocation still is mostly sufficient. > > The number of routing table entries is growing exponentially, > not because of increase of the number of ISPs, but because of > multihoming. > > As such, if entities requiring IPv4 multihoming will also > require IPv6 multihoming, the numbers of routing table > entries will be same. > > The proper solution is to have end to end multihoming: > > https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-02.txt
I'd never read that. We'd made openwrt in particular use "source specific routing" for ipv6 by default, many years ago, but I don't know to what extent that facility is used. ip route from a:b:c:d:/64 via dev A ip route from a:b:d:d:/64 via dev B > > Your reasoning is correct, but the size of the math matters more. > > Indeed, with the current operational practice. global IPv4 > routing table size is bounded below 16M. OTOH, that for > IPv6 is unbounded. > > Masataka Ohta > -- I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
