Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

[Daniel Golding <dgolding () burtongroup com>]

On 10/17/05 4:51 PM, "Tony Li" <tony.li () tony li> wrote:
> Fred,
>
> > If we are able to reduce the routing table size by an order of
> > magnitude, I don't see that we have a requirement to fundamentally
> > change the routing technology to support it. We may *want* to (and
> > yes, I would like to, for various reasons), but that is a different
> > assertion.
>
>
> There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in the
> table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it to
> bloat in the first place.  Simply reducing the table as a one-off
> only buys you linearly more time.  Eliminating the drivers for bloat
> buys you technology generations.
>
> If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems
> that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to
> happen again.

That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocol
transition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is. We can't see
into the future. However, assuming that IPv6 is the Last Protocol seems a
bit short sighted. If we get 20 years out of IPv6, that will be just peachy.

Of course, if we can't get PI address space for enterprises and real
multihoming, there won't be any real IPv6 deployment. Lots of (possibly
illegitimate) IPv4 trading and NAT, but not IPv6.

These aren't nice to haves. Even if it shortens the life of IPv6, that is an
acceptable trade-off.

IPv6 is not the Last Protocol.

> Regards,
> Tony

Dan