I've been mulling this over for days, and have concluded that my only option is to abstain.
> STATEMENTS & BALLOT: > > A) "The Internet continuing down the current architectural path, > whereby site multi-homing increases the size/entropy of the > DFZ RIB/FIB is not believed to be scalable or viable." > > [ ] YES > [ ] NO I regard it as quite plausible that if we do nothing (modulo deploying IPv6) the BGP4 table size will eventually stabilise at about 1 million entries, and it's very plausible that this will not be a technological problem. > > B) "There is no reason to believe that a scalable solution for > site multi-homing will appear in the future so long as the > Internet proceeds with current architectural approach to > site multi-homing." > > [ ] YES > [ ] NO I can't say No to that, but I can't say Yes either, because there is no issue unless the demand for multihoming expands *disproportionately* to the general growth of the network. I have no reason to believe that it will expand disproportionately. Neither of these abstentions means that we shouldn't look for a scalable solution, of course. Brian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg