nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:13:13 -0400
In message <885D3ED1-2EE0-431B-A51A-8935E2A34081 () nominum com>, David Conrad wri tes:
Christian, On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:What's the problem with independent address space for every entity (company, family, enterprise) which wants it?It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes down substantially. Wouldn't you agree?My feeling is that the question isn't how much memory, but rather how much CPU and bandwidth is necessary to deal with routing thrash.
That's right. The issues are the complexity of the routing computation and the convergence time/stability of the routing computation as a whole. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 James (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Nils Ketelsen (Jul 08)
- RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Kuhtz, Christian (Jul 07)
- RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Kuhtz, Christian (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 07)
- RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Kuhtz, Christian (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Andre Oppermann (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 07)
- RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Brad Knowles (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 08)
- RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Kuhtz, Christian (Jul 07)