Yes, thank you. That would address my concern. I was reading
"extrapolate ... would look like" in a broader sense than you intended.
Yours,
Joel
Thomas Narten wrote:
What you propose to add is good. But, the text in 4.6 as written claims
"It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 routing table
would be if wide spread adoption of IPv6 occurred..."
Ah. Is your issue more narrow in the sense that this statement is
misleading?
The extrapolation is intended for "today" not for "next year" or "ten
years from now".
You must be assuming that the exising pressures that contribute to
problems will get worse (I tend to agree!). But, that doesn't really
have anything to do with IPv6. I.e., IPv6 doesn't make those pressures
stronger or lesser. They will also get worse with IPv4.
the extrapolation that then takes place assumes that the same factors
that currently constrain IPv4 sizes would constrain IPvb6 sizes, and
that seems extremely unlikely. Hence, this extrapolation is very
optimistic, and misleading to the reader.
How about if I change the statement as follows:
OLD:
It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 Internet
routing table would be if widespread IPv6 adoption occurred, from the
current IPv4 Internet routing table.
NEW:
It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 Internet
routing table might look like today, from the current IPv4 Internet
routing table, if widespread IPv6 adoption were to occur
"instantaneously",
Then, at the end of the paragraph add something like:
Of course, this estimate is based on a current snapshot of IPv4
routing activity. Unless the pressures described elsewhere in this
document are reduced, the actual table size would be larger.
Would that address your concern?
Thomas
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
