Re: [RRG] NAT-PT and other approaches to IPv6 adoption - Dual Stack Lite

[HeinerHummel@aol.com]

In einer eMail vom 01.08.2008 10:48:07 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt rw@firstpr.com.au:

The IPv4 Internet has a routing scaling problem which has been
recognised for years. 

... and which is immanent to its current design only

 

It is reasonable to expect the rate of growth
in the DFZ routing table to increase in the next few years as fresh
IPv4 space becomes increasingly hard to get, causing people to slice
up existing space more and more in order to utilize it better.

... but no one wants to give up prefix building, prefix caching, etc. etc. 

 

  I think its addresses are 64 bits too long,

agreed; with 64 bits each square centimeter oof the surface of this planet can be identified.

I don't know how to call that tiny spot which could be identified by using 128 bits.

It seems wrong to me for two people to be chatting idly across the
globe, supposedly for free, when 50 VoIP packets a second traverse
20 routers in one or both directions at once, and each router has to
implement an onerous multi-step computation, with DRAM lookups, just
to forward each packet.

However, if my FLOWv6 scalable routing proposal proves to be practical:

  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg02036.html

then this burden on the FIBs of DFZ routers would be greatly reduced.

If I were given the chance to prove my solution:

 

20 routers along the path, each doing forwarding by a single table offset rather than by about 20 prefix compares, not only means 20 times fast forwarding but 20 x 20 = 400 times faster forwarding. 
 

Maybe the Fire Chief is right.
Maybe we should let IPv4 tangle itself up in more and more BGP
updates, more and more expensive routers, until one day, enough
folks get sick of it - and of their own volition, come on over to
the Lasting Home of IPv6.

 

A few years ago there were quite some more voices against BGP. But where are they now ?

All disadvantages forgotten ?

 

Heiner