nanog mailing list archives
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
From: Daniel Senie <dts () senie com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:23:47 -0400
At 04:51 PM 10/17/2005, 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.
But wasn't that the rationale for originally putting the kitchen sink into IPv6, rather than fixing the address length issue? I think we missed a lot of opportunities. Extended addressing may well have been possible to integrate in the mid 1990's ahead of much of the massive Internet expansion. Too late.
We're 10 years on, and talking about whether there will need to be more than one massive pain of migration, because the kitchen sink didn't take into account multihoming. Now we're talking about a solution that appear to be an even worse Rube Goldberg than token ring source-route bridging. Moore will likely have to continue to produce the solution.
Current thread:
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news), (continued)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Randy Bush (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Alexei Roudnev (Oct 23)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Gordon Cook (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Paul Vixie (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Marshall Eubanks (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Randy Bush (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Daniel Senie (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Tony Li (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different Robert E . Seastrom (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Fred Baker (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Stephen Sprunk (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Stephen Sprunk (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) bmanning (Oct 17)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Michael . Dillon (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Stephen Sprunk (Oct 18)
- Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news) Michael . Dillon (Oct 19)