If the question comes down to IPv6 vs. IPv4, my answer is "yes to both" - but, AFAICT IPv6 provides the vector for scaling the number of end systems and edge networks.
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-----Original Message----- >From: Tony Li [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:23 AM >To: 'Scott Brim' >Cc: 'rrg' >Subject: RE: [RRG] Moving forward... > > >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 > -- 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
