>>>>> "Randal" == Randal L Schwartz <[email protected]> writes:
Randal> [...] Suppose I own 4.x.x.x right now (that's 4.0.0.0/8), and Randal> I'm really only using half. So I decide to sell you 4.N.x.x Randal> where N > 127. Now, if you're not immediately adjacent to me Randal> on the internets (and it's not possible to be adjacent on Randal> multiple vectors, so the answer is *never*), every single ASN Randal> router will have to record *two* routes where they formerly Randal> had one: one toward me for 4.0.0.0/9, and one towards you at Randal> 4.128.0.0/9. Randal> If people are allowed to do that, the routers would quickly Randal> collapse. The RIRs won't allow that. Randal> Thus, there's not going to be an IPv4 gold rush, and instead Randal> IPv6 *must* be deployed before the first RIRs are dry. I'm not an expert on backbone routing, but ... I don't grasp how a few extra ipv4 routes are going to lead to armegedon but ipv6 routing isn't. Surely with the proliferation of address space, ipv6 is going to be *more* expensive to route than ipv4. My little 200MHz 32meg RAM Mips-based Netgear WGT634Us are maintaining routing tables hundreds of routes long and it doesn't seem to be causing them much strain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BGP_Table_growth.svg Are you really suggesting that even 256 (instead of 2) new routes is going to make a difference? -- Russell Senior, President [email protected] _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
