[address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Fri Jul 1 14:30:47 CEST 2011
On Fri, 1 Jul 2011, Sascha Lenz wrote: > You are in the IT business and you really think about 30+ years from > now? Rather sounds like a science fiction author to me :-) Yes, I do. I consider that a responsible approach. IPv4 lasted ~30 years before it ran into serious problems, I want IPv6 to last a lot longer. I also want it to scale so everybody can use it. > This wasn't a real problem in the IPv4 world, i really doubt that is an > immanent problem in the IPv6 world if the policies are identical; by > design, most entities will have a single prefix (or per site worst case) > and stay with that for most of their days. Yes, but the problem is if everybody (or even 1%) in the world wants to multihome, then it doesn't scale. > I'm not sure why there should be a higher IPv6 "PI" usage rate than for > IPv4. Because more and more people (and companies) are adopting Internet usage and in 20-30 years time the demand for multihoming is most likely going to substantially higher than today. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Source of routing table growth
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]