On 6/6/08 1:22 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
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.
So ... you're just asking about IPv6, and IPv4 is a different question?
I support "Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6". :-)
--
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
