"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>> Michel Py wrote:
|>> One billion routes in the global routing table = does not scale.
|
|> This is the main fallacy in your statement. You are assuming
|> that a billion PI address blocks has to equate to a billion
|> routes in some global routing table (or even that there has to
|> *be* a global table). That would be the case only if we insist
|> on remaining with a full-knowledge centralized routing model.
|
|Assuming? Hello? This exactly what PI is. If there is no central routing
|it's not PI anymore. PI is what we have _today_.
You are confusing the portability attribute of the address with the
implementation of its routing. By the definition you chose, PI is a
type of address. It is not a routing mechanism.
You have also declined to define what you would consider acceptable
scalability. You seem to be saying that you aren't happy with a solution
unless it allows yesterday's archaic routing protocols running on today's
hardware to handle the projected growth of the next decade. Such a
requirement constrains the solution beyond any hope of progress.
|> Such models are outdated. We can do better.
|
|Why don't you write something about it?
I have written about it, most recently in 1999. Why don't you read about
it in the archives?
|The entire world is waiting for
|it.
The world, perhaps. But it is never a popular topic on this list...
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
