Kurtis, > Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > but even if we in San Fransisco would agree on a new routing model, > it would still take us at least 3-5 years to implement. > See the migration to BGP4 as example.
5 years is overly optimistic, IMHO. > I say go for /48 PI space. Take a /16 (or something suitable) and > divide it per RIR, and use it as PI space. This is way too risky. Potentially, 4 billion routes. I agree that we don't have a problem in the short term. Until we get to 50k routes nobody cares. But, doing this would put research efforts to a halt. 10 years down the road, suddenly we have 500k BGP 4+ and the Internet craps out. I don't want to be the guy that recommended that we re-create the IPv4 swamp, because this is exactly what we are talking about. 10 or 15 years ago, we gave away swamp space to anyone that wanted it because nobody thought that it would ever have a scalability issue. 4 billion /48 prefixes in the global routing table, what do you call this? I call it IPv6 swamp. I say: No to the IPv6 swamp. >> Michel Py wrote: >> (C) Finally do something about IPv6 multihoming. > I would rather see (C) Come up with a new "routing" paradigm. These are not incompatible goals, they are complementary I think. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
