RE: [RRG] Moving forward...

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

If the question comes down to IPv6 vs. IPv4, my answer
is "yes to both" - but, AFAICT IPv6 provides the vector
for scaling the number of end systems and edge networks.

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tony Li [mailto:tony.li@tony.li] 
>Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 10:23 AM
>To: 'Scott Brim'
>Cc: 'rrg'
>Subject: RE: [RRG] Moving forward...
>
>
>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
>

--
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