RE: [RRG] Moving forward...

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

Scott, 

|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.


Perhaps I need better wording, but applicability to IPv4 is not part of the
issue.  

Tony


--
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