On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Michael Thomas wrote: > I've seen nothing which would dissuade me of that > notion, and plenty of evidence in the here and now > that that's exactly what will happen. Since IPv6 > does not have an adequate solution for renumbering > -- and any such solution being the path of least > resistance is highly dubious -- are we not in the > same situation as IPv4 with respect to the > inevitabilty of NAT's since global PI is > inherently self-limiting due to route growth? > > Mike
"route growth": I would really prefer to see 20.000 IPv6 routes if 20.000 ASNs exist, but today i think there is no problem with having 120.000 routes, the same way it wouldnt be a problem to have 500.000 -- just keep upgrading the memory on your border routers, thus keeping the vendors happy! ;-) *However*... if i saw more than 127.000 on the v4 global routing system, i would say that a lot of it might have just one cause: people dont know what they are doing! With some task-force *acting* regarding routing, mistakes could be seriously reduced. In terms of IPv6, there is the GRH project... my thoughts on this are pretty clear: it *now* the time to prevent mistakes to happen while the IPv6 global routing table is short, and at the same time estabilish the means to keep it *clean*! Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
