On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:40 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > If every end user on the Internet could get a /48 directly from > an RIR the global BGP table would melt any router designed into slag.
It is well understood now that IPv6 really has nothing to do with solving DFZ table bloat. > And with IPv6, because the globally-significant part of the number > is only on the router, if the organization is properly setup, > renumbering is a snap, so the poor excuse that renumbering labor > would be so high as to justify not renumbering isn't available. That renumbering would be a snap is only true if you ignore real-world issues like DNS, firewalls, ACL's, etc. You can only push ULA addressing so far and we'll be back to NATing IPv6. > But if you don't qualify to get a portable IPv4 now, there > is nothing magical about IPv6 I've best heard IPv6 described as "96 more bits, no magic". > Perhaps you have some new radical way of routing IP numbers on the > Internet > that your planning on introducing. But until you introduce it, or > someone > else does, the need will still exist to organize numbering on the > Internet in a > heiarchical fashion, The IRTF RRG has been exploring this problem space. Dale _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
