Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:43:59PM +0200, Ziv Leyes wrote: > What I do think the most important thing you mention and I want to make sure > I understood is regarding the "3000::/3, 4000::/3" and so on. > Are you actually telling me that IPv6 was built for scalability?
The current global addressing policies work out of FP001, that is,
only 2000::/3 will be used up.
If we figure out in 20 years from now that we were all wrong, and 2000::/3
is already full due to wastage and such, the IETF can give 4000::/3 to
ICANN/IANA, and we can try again, with more restrictive address policies.
We can repeat this 6 times.
> If the answer is yes and adding more zillions of addresses won't
> bring the world to another shock as it is now to transfer all from
> v4 to v6, but will be some kind of seamless updates of the protocol,
> this is something I wasn't aware of and this will make me stop
> "worrying" and I'll keep my mouth shut...
This would not need changing of protocols, software, or anything - just
of allocation policies.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpPhqn8EgExA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
