On Feb 12, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Vest <tv...@eyeconomics.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Danny McPherson <da...@arbor.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>>> >>>>> I really think that the conversation about ipv4/ipv6 and route-scaling >>>>> has to understand that for the foreseeable future we're going to have >>>>> to deal with both ip protocols... and in 25-30 (maybe more) years a >>>>> third protocol. >>>> >>>> Indeed, hence my "long term transitional coexistence" phrasing :-) >>> >>> Sorry, I meant 'there is no transition, there is only coexistence' >>> (from my perspective at least that seems to be what'll happen, of >>> course no crystal balls and only 5 computers ever will be needed.) >>> >>> -Chris >>> (and I get that you == danny get this, but for the record I think we >>> should be clear that ipv4 ain't going away, ever) >> >> Does "ain't going away" mean that you cannot envision any time in the future >> in which, say, IPv4 has the same impact on scalability concerns as RFC1918 >> has today? > > 1918 does have scaling implications, if you carry it as internal > routes... at some ISP's internal routes are ~30% of the total table > size seen. It's not the same cost for everyone, but neither is a > single prefix in the global table :(
That had not escaped me ;-) But it seems to me that those RFC 1918 implications are sufficiently different in degree (e.g., of extra-local effects, of susceptibility to effective local mitigation) that the question made sense -- i.e., that the comparison was more realistic than either of the alternative scenarios (A: IPv4-specific scaling impacts are never going to get any better, B: IPv4-specific scaling issues are certain to be completely eliminated). > I also suspect (as I said before) we'll see longer than /24 routes in > the global table (not leaks/mistakes) before this is all over. I don't > like that concept, but I don't see an outcome that doesn't include > this. > > -chris Well, you have company there. Hopefully both of us will turn out to be wrong, or alternately that this development won't eliminate all detours around A. TV _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
