In einer eMail vom 18.11.2008 06:04:38 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Since it is not practical to solve the | routing scaling problem with host upgrades, | adding a core-edge separation scheme (ITRs, | ETRs and a mapping system) is a way of | providing portability and multihoming to | all end-user networks which want it, while | reducing the burden on routers, and while | maintaining the full Internet service at all | times. | | It is adding "stuff" - hardware, software | and a global mapping system - to the Net, | in order to avoid adding something uglier | and more expensive, ever-bigger routers | and a less stable DFZ (while still not | meeting the portability and multihoming | needs of many smaller end-user networks). Well, that's certainly one opinion. If we want to change the architecture to something that we can live with in perpetuity, we might want to step back and take a larger view of the world. IPv6 is coming, like it or not. Well, that's certainly one opinion, too. Quote from the RAWS report: 3.2. IPv6 and Its Potential Impact on Routing Table Size Due to the increased IPv6 address size over IPv4, a full immediate transition to IPv6 is estimated to lead to the RIB and FIB sizes increasing by a factor of about four. The size of the routing table based on a more realistic assumption, that of parallel IPv4 and IPv6 routing for many years, is less clear. An increasing amount of allocated IPv6 address prefixes is in PI space. ARIN [ARIN] has relaxed its policy for allocation of such space and has been allocating /48 prefixes when customers request PI prefixes. Thus, the same pressures affecting IPv4 address allocations also affect IPv6 allocations. Heiner
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
