Hello,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Sascha Lenz <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:slz@baycix.de">slz@baycix.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<br>
[...]<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
</div>why do you expect a &quot;sudden spike&quot;? You know, IPv6 adoption is painfully slow.<br>
And actually, that&#39;s one of the points why some (most?) support the proposal, to speed that up!<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Not the IPv4 PI address space holders create the real problems...<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">

So, i&#39;m a little confused now why this is bad.<br>
<br>
I don&#39;t know if this few (yes, it&#39;s &quot;few&quot; for me) more IPv6 prefixes will cause any problems at all,<br>
or if bugs are trigged, no one knows. We&#39;ll have to see, or someone might want to write a paper about it indeed :-)<br>
<br>
And why should THIS be a money issue? If you don&#39;t plan for 20k IPv6 prefixes when buying new border routers nowadays, what the hell are you doing?<br>
And what &quot;border-router-grade&quot; hardware doesn&#39;t support this few prefixes?<br>
<br>
I&#39;m FAR more concerned about IPv4 table growth/deaggregation after exhaustion...<br></blockquote><div><br>We are concerned as well! However, the two tables share the same phisical memory!<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">

<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards<br>
<br>
Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]<br>
Senior System- &amp; Network Architect<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div>Géza<br>