Well, I think that the IPv6 enabled terminals/sites would like to be reachable natively through IP6. So it looks like there will be a lot of multihoming needs as both IPv6 and IPv4 will co-exist.
And those sites/terminals that start to use IPv6 in parallel with IPv4 need to go through "renumbering" process; adding the IPv6 addresses into the connectivity system (DCHP, DNS, FW, ACL). This renumbering should be acceptable. - Hannu --------- >I think that there would only be unsustainable growth in the number of >IPv6 BGP routes if there was a widespread general uptake of IPv6 by end >users - including those who want to sell things to the legions of >predicted mobile users. A routing scaling problem for >IPv6 would emerge if there was a few hundred thousand of these >organisations who decided they need to be on IPv6, and that they want >multihomed and/or portable space so badly that they get their own PI >space. Maybe this will happen. Who says there needs to be growth in the number of IPv6 BGP routes? If we map/encaps the entire IPv6 space as an overlay over the existing IPv4 Internet, we keep IPv6 prefixes out of the BGP routing tables and we get to scale through mapping w/o affecting routing scaling. -- 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
