Scott, |On 6/6/08 12:45 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote: |> Our recommended solution should be applicable to IPv6. It |may also apply to |> IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6. | |I think applicability to IPv4 is equally important. First, it will be |years before there are more IPv6 packets than IPv4 packets -- longer |than the time frame in which we must get our new technology |deployed -- |and efficient control of IPv4 forwarding is important. Second, the |granularity of IPv4 allocations is very probably going to go up |dramatically in these final days, and that "state*rate" load |will not go |away for a long time. We will have to carry it in routing until |(unless) we deal with multihoming, hijacking, etc. for IPv4.
Perhaps I need better wording, but applicability to IPv4 is not part of the issue. Tony -- 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
