Resent, since the list's anti-trivia protection interpreted the
third word that I quoted as being an administrative request,
due to a rather generic regular expression. I can't really
explain it properly, since otherwise the same regular expression
would very possibly reject the message again.
On
On 22 sep 2008, at 17:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If the space is densely populated you can simply use an array, this
is extemely efficient.
Is there any actual chance of having a densely populated space in
IPv6 ?
Not for the whole space, of course. But you could have parts of it
The problem is that if you have 64k /48s that would be a /32, but
they actually reserve a /44 for each of those /48 users so they use
up a /28.
When the global IPv6 (IANA to RIR) allocation policy was proposed, the
RIRs promised to stop reserving IPv6 address space and allocate from
the
On 9/20/08 7:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
I don't think we need to design for a world where most domestic subscribers
are multihomed,
I agree residences will probably consolidate down to one or two
connections as long as the economic system looks something like it is
today.
On Sun, 2008-09-21 at 15:52 +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Marshall,
Well, if there is some number like 2^23 or 2^27 of prefixes active
in a 64-bit prefix space, and they don't aggregate, that seems sparse
in exactly the sense of a sparse matrix. I'm not suggesting this is
On 22 sep 2008, at 14:18, Steven Blake wrote:
I'm not aware of any solutions other than TCAMs or Patricia tries
for fast lookups in such a space, whether it's for mapping or
for forwarding.
It wouldn't hurt if the vast majority of those prefixes were the same
length (say /48). There are
On Sep 22, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 sep 2008, at 14:18, Steven Blake wrote:
I'm not aware of any solutions other than TCAMs or Patricia tries
for fast lookups in such a space, whether it's for mapping or
for forwarding.
It wouldn't hurt if the vast majority of
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
How helpful would it be if the prefixes were non-sparse? I.e., 2^25
prefixes out of a /26.
Currently the RIRs are being extra sparse on purpose (reserving a /44
for everyone who gets a /48) and I've long argued that this doesn't
have the intended helpful effect in
(Given the history of IP addressing, and the recent discussions
on this list, I don't know any other assumption we can make
except that IDs will look like meaningless randomly distributed
numbers.)
That is the worst case: a swamp. I don't think it'll be that bad
overall, but there
More catch up...
Brian wrote:
|I fully agree, and what I'm suggesting is that the (sad) history of
|the initial success of CIDR followed by the recent backsliding which
|I call the PI heresy shows us that economics will always
|tend to create
|a swamp, so we'd better engineer the system for a
Tony,
On 2008-09-19 05:22, Tony Li wrote:
More catch up...
Brian wrote:
|I fully agree, and what I'm suggesting is that the (sad) history of
|the initial success of CIDR followed by the recent backsliding which
|I call the PI heresy shows us that economics will always
|tend to create
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-09-16 15:24, Robin Whittle wrote:
Subject: Re: [RRG] Consequences of no renumbering...
I missed the bit where it was proved that fast mapping
mathematically requires aggregatable EIDs.
Who suggested this?
I've seen numerous references to
Stephen,
On 2008-09-17 07:15, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-09-16 15:24, Robin Whittle wrote:
Subject: Re: [RRG] Consequences of no renumbering...
I missed the bit where it was proved that fast mapping
mathematically requires aggregatable EIDs.
Who
13 matches
Mail list logo
