James Knott
Another would be if they happen to be on a fragile end of the BGP tree and have to change their routes frequently, STP propagation might be fast, but to propagate a changed route if there's millions of entries in the arp table could take a while.
Routing tables are based on network, not individual host addresses. This means that the number of computers or addresses you use is irrelevant, so long as they all belong to your network or subnet.
I don't know why I picked up your routing table argument, I was originally talking about the neighbourhood table, aka arp6. freundt@qaos:pts/2:~> ip -6 neigh | wc -l 3863 freundt@qaos:pts/2:~> ip -6 neigh | grep STALE wc -l grep: wc: No such file or directory freundt@qaos:pts/2:~> ip -6 neigh | grep STALE | wc -l 1649 As you can see, more than half the entries have to go STALE first before a new route is picked up. I know there's ip neigh flush but do I want to do that on 4000+ computers just because I changed a route? Ok, I won't change a route willy-nilly but if someone else came along with their 4000+ computers using *my* address space there will be trouble, it's inevitable. And that's exactly one of my points actually: v6 migration needs coordination! And consideration, people jumped at the first transition suggestion there was, and now we have teredo/miredo routing, gone in software, but still cast in hardware. I for one prefer working with conservative and modest people who think before they implement their ideas, restricting a /64 to 1 host or restricting a link to one address (on the router side) is not the worst idea, if you *really* think about it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org