[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Moving forward...



I disagree. I don't object to having a solution that also helps IPv4, but I do not think it is as important as getting something that works for IPv6.

We can keep the IPv4 net working for quite a while. Particularly if we can provide some reason for folks to believe that v6 will matter. If there is some actual benefit to the users (like better multi-homing) from IPv6, then not only will folks move towards it, but folks will believe that it is likely to matter, which reinforces the effect. This in turn should help keep the pressure on v4 within the manageable range.

Note that trying to do this without solving the architectural probloems will merely result in v6 continuing to be ignored. Or worse, v6 becoming an even worse case of the problems we have with v4.

Joel


Scott Brim wrote:
On 6/6/08 12:45 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
Our recommended solution should be applicable to IPv6. It may also apply to
IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6.

I think applicability to IPv4 is equally important. First, it will be years before there are more IPv6 packets than IPv4 packets -- longer than the time frame in which we must get our new technology deployed -- and efficient control of IPv4 forwarding is important. Second, the granularity of IPv4 allocations is very probably going to go up dramatically in these final days, and that "state*rate" load will not go away for a long time. We will have to carry it in routing until (unless) we deal with multihoming, hijacking, etc. for IPv4.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg


--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg