North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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

  • From: Alexei Roudnev
  • Date: Mon Oct 24 02:42:45 2005

Randy; we are living on Earth with small size (only 6,000 km in radius), so
we will never see unlimited grouth in multihomed networks.

It is not a problem. We are not building Internet for the whole universe.
Good old Moore can deal with our planet very well.
I repeated many times - IPv6 idea of changing multihome approach is VERY BAD
and will not survise for more that 1 - 2 years. (if IPv6 survive at all,
which I have many doubts about).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Bush" <[email protected]>
To: "Daniel Golding" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Tony Li" <[email protected]>; "Fred Baker" <[email protected]>; "Per Heldal"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

> >> 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.
> tony probably did not think about it because that's not what he
> said at all.  he was speaking of routing table bloat, not
> transitions.
> and he was spot on.
> randy