[GLOBAL-V6] Re: up a few thousand meters

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

>    **** Please read Randy's message - again - and once more.

I second this. Strongly.

Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> writes:

> However, there are a few reasons why we, even though IPv6 does not solve 
> the problem, _can_ solve it:

> 1) organizations, however large, can be represented by one "dot", a /48.  
>    This enables us, at worst, to have O(organizations) routing table 
>    entries, not O(organizations * average number of nodes per 
>    organization).  The former is too big still, but it is still good news 
>    and makes aggregation and address space estimations easier.

I don't understand this comment at all. An O(organizations) size
routing table does not appear supportable in practice. How is one
result (that doesn't work) any better than another result that also
doesn't work?

> 2) it's all new protocol -- not a win as such, but due to this, we can 
>    _reinvent_ the routing system (within some restrictions) the way we
>    see fit, based on earlier experience.

Until someone has a proposal on the table for which there is some
reasonable sense within the community that it might actually work, the
only prudent thing to do *today* is assume we only have what exists
*today*.

One thing we want to be very careful about is putting in place
policies that we know are risky for the long term and would be hard to
reverse down the road without recreating a a haves vs. have nots
situation again.

Thomas
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net