Wed Aug 16 17:07:48 CEST 1995
Paul, > the plan is that IPv6 addresses will be allocated hierarchically from day 1, > and with proxy aggregation it should be possible for sean's stated goal of > "4 routes in the table on some defaultless networks" to be reached. > > the routing table is no longer doubling every nine months. we've been sort > of hanging out in the 25,000 - 30,000 range for almost six months now. > > the largest single component of the table size comes from old allocations of > class c nets, which are 2/3 the total. > > thus if ipv6 actually comes to pass, and we do start over with new prefixes > allocated pseudohierarchically, we may have a lot fewer prefixes, each taking > more memory than an ipv4 prefix, yet taking dramatically less memory overall. The most serious problem we're facing is NOT how to route to the existing allocations, but how we're going to route to all the new allocations that are due to the exponential growth of the Internet. With this in mind, why do you think that IPv6 allocation would be any different than CIDR IPv4 allocations (which is how all the new allocations suppose to be done) ? So far all the documents I've seen on IPv6 address allocation are quite similar to IPv4 address allocation documents. > that's the _plan_, mind you. I think this is not even "the _plan_". I think that is what some of us could wish be "the plan". Yakov.
[ lir-wg Archive ]