[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Fri Nov 18 18:03:20 CET 2005
>>> Who are you to decide who is too small to be allowed independence? >> someone with routers which have to carry all those prefixes > You mean the very small tier 1 club? All others can default and don't > _have_ to carry all those prefixes. no, that's not what i mean and you know it. the number of t1s is a very tiny percentage of those carrying full routing. you may wish it otherwise. i may wish it otherwise. but until there is solid technology to support better routing, that's life. get used to it. > What's _your_ solution to this problem _now_ in IPv6? stop deployment, which is negligible anyway, and fix the technology. and fixing is not applying endless half-assed hacks that don't actually do the job. we're gonna live with this stuff for a very long time. it should be very far more solid design than it is. if we're patching now, what will be the kludge level 20 years from now? randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]