Re: [RRG] RE: What do we have consensus on?

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Hi Tony,

You wrote, in part:

> |I wasn't suggesting we only try to solve the IPv4 routing scaling
> |problem, or that the solution should only work for IPv4.  However, I
> |think the urgency of implementing the solution in IPv6 is less - so
> |we could probably afford to wait and learn from the IPv4 experience.
> 
> You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.  However, IMHO, it is
> inappropriate to use IPv4 as a proving ground.  We cannot reasonably ask the
> entire world to change routing architectures *as an experiment*.  We need to
> perform experiments to be sure, and they may be done on v4, but by the time
> that we reach the scale of the entire network, we should be extremely
> certain of the outcome.
> 
> Thus, I feel that the real overriding requirement is that we have a solution
> applicable to v6.  

I think we need a solution which works for both.  I wasn't
suggesting that IPv4 be used as any kind of test bed.

I am confident that Ivip could be implemented on a small scale for
both IPv4 and IPv6 to prove it works and that it is technically
feasible.  Then it could be implemented with confidence in both IPv4
and IPv6.  A major change such as this involves a bunch of
technical, administrative and business considerations which all
interact - but it looks feasible and promising to me.

I think the demand for the solution would be much stronger and more
urgent in IPv4 than in IPv6.

 - Robin

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com 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