Re: [RRG] Moving forward...

[Scott Brim <swb@employees.org>]

On 6/6/08 1:22 PM, Tony Li allegedly wrote:
> 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.  

So ... you're just asking about IPv6, and IPv4 is a different question?

I support "Our recommendation should be applicable to IPv6". :-)


--
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