Hi Tony, You wrote, in part:
> |I wasn't suggesting we only try to solve the IPv4 routing scaling > |problem, or that the solution should only work for IPv4. However, I > |think the urgency of implementing the solution in IPv6 is less - so > |we could probably afford to wait and learn from the IPv4 experience. > > You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. However, IMHO, it is > inappropriate to use IPv4 as a proving ground. We cannot reasonably ask the > entire world to change routing architectures *as an experiment*. We need to > perform experiments to be sure, and they may be done on v4, but by the time > that we reach the scale of the entire network, we should be extremely > certain of the outcome. > > Thus, I feel that the real overriding requirement is that we have a solution > applicable to v6. I think we need a solution which works for both. I wasn't suggesting that IPv4 be used as any kind of test bed. I am confident that Ivip could be implemented on a small scale for both IPv4 and IPv6 to prove it works and that it is technically feasible. Then it could be implemented with confidence in both IPv4 and IPv6. A major change such as this involves a bunch of technical, administrative and business considerations which all interact - but it looks feasible and promising to me. I think the demand for the solution would be much stronger and more urgent in IPv4 than in IPv6. - Robin -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
