On 6/6/08 12:45 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
Our recommended solution should be applicable to IPv6. It may also apply to IPv4, but at the very least must provide a path forward for IPv6.
I think applicability to IPv4 is equally important. First, it will be years before there are more IPv6 packets than IPv4 packets -- longer than the time frame in which we must get our new technology deployed -- and efficient control of IPv4 forwarding is important. Second, the granularity of IPv4 allocations is very probably going to go up dramatically in these final days, and that "state*rate" load will not go away for a long time. We will have to carry it in routing until (unless) we deal with multihoming, hijacking, etc. for IPv4.
-- 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