You where not at the rebellion/ad-hoc/let's get out of here and go for bee
multi6 meeting on Thursday in Atlanta.
I was not actually aware of these meetings until later... I have
since joined the mailing list.
One thing I have been think of. Do we know what the increased
prefix-length does to implementations and the effect on convergence times?
What I would like to do is have someone load a bunch of routers up with
the current 130k routes but with a prefix length of 128n bits, what
happens? What is the cost?
I don't know if anyone has studied this. It is a very interesting
question.
Not in the draft I have worked on now. In futuer? Yes, we will need a
solution to the scaling problem, but that needs to be achieved with a
routing solutions as well as perhaps a solution to addresses.
Right. I think that we will actually need to make a fairly major change
to the routing architecture of the Internet somewhere down the line, in
order to support continued growth. I don't know what form it will take,
but it will probably require some changes to IPv6, at least to the
structure or allocation or IPv6 addresses.
True, but it would cause IPv6 routing table growth... Do you have an
answer for that?
Without a question! But now we need to but time and deployment more than
anything else.
I'm not sure I can quite agree...
I have the following things running around in my brain, and they aren't
converging:
- We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6, or we will
see wide deployment of IPv6 NAT in enterprises
and homes. No one seems to be disagreeing with
this.
- We think that the use of NAT is one of the serious
architectural problems facing the Internet today,
and that NAT is blocking the advancement of the
Internet in many ways. For an IPv6 Internet to
be a "success", we must avoid the wide-scale
deployment of IPv6 NAT.
- We don't currently have a fully developed plan for
aggregable, scalable IPv6 PI addressing. Some
folks are working on this problem, but no one
has claimed to have a full answer yet.
- We know that providing widely-used PI addresses in IPv6
will result in substantially larger routing
tables than doing straight PA addressing.
- We also know that routing table size is a real scaling
factor in the IPv4 Internet, for which we have not
determined an adequate solution.
- Routing table growth is not (yet) a scaling problem
for IPv6, because of limited deployment. However,
wide deployment of IPv6 is also a criteria for
"success", so we need to build a scalable
solution...
- However, "success" must also include the avoidance of
wide-scale IPv6 NAT deployment, which we can only
achieve if we provide PI addresses...
[Ad infinitim.]
So, where do we go from here?
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
