Re: protocols that don't meet the need...

[Michael.Dillon () btradianz com]

> The current routing model doesn't scale. I don't want to sit 5 years 
from 
> now needing a router that'll handle 8 million routes to get me through 
the 
> next 5 years of route growth.

You might want to read a NANOG posting made by Sean Doran
back in September 1995
http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9509/msg00047.html
People had scaling problems back then because routers 
were less powerful. They solved those scaling problems
without rushing to the vendors, checkbook in hand.
You might want to review some of the other discussion
on NANOG during that month, September 1995, to see 
what people were saying about topological addressing.

> PI space for multihoming and AS number growth is a bad thing for scaling 

> and economics, however you look at it.

I disagree. I think the Internet can scale the current
routing model to 8 million routes using proxy aggregation,
filtering and geo-topological allocation of IPv6 addresses to
multihomers. 

> Shim6 would hopefully curb the prefix growth very early in the growth 
> curve as single entities won't need AS to multihome between two 
different 
> ISPs.

Who wants to use a technology that will not let them
get to Yahoo and other major websites? Shim6 is dead.
We either change the routing architecture entirely 
or we find better ways to aggregate and filter so that
the global routing table only has routes that need to
be visible everywhere to everyone. Talk to Owen Delong
if you think we need to change the whole architecture.

In any case, creative thinking is what is needed. Not
scary linear extrapolations.

--Michael Dillon