[address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Michel Py michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Wed Oct 5 02:07:33 CEST 2011
> Havard Eidnes wrote: > From what I've picked up from reputable sources, we're pushing > the limits, and Moore's law does not appear to apply to the > rather specialized market of humungous TCAM chips. I'm not > sufficiently of an optimist that I think we won't hit a > technological limit in the case of us collectively injecting > too much entropy into the global routing table. Getting back to the policy part and not the technicalities of forwarding plane implementation: this is not the point. Keep in mind that part the very design of IPv6 is precisely the uncertainties around hitting a wall at some point. 10 years ago, I defended your position for the same reasons you do, and I am not among those saying that there is no risk, or that it will work the next 20 years the same way it worked the past 20. Nobody has a crystal ball. Here is the point: now the name of the game is no longer making it right, it's making it happen at all. We do not have the luxury of contemplating a 15 year deployment horizon anymore. What we are weighing in now are 2 opposite risks: the risk of hitting a wall in DFZ size in the future, against the risk of a total deployment failure. Michel.