[138456] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv4 address shortage? Really?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Mar 8 08:34:34 2011
To: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:37:27 EST."
<FC02AD63-85A9-403A-BE88-CBC1808615C6@cs.columbia.edu>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 08:32:59 -0500
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1299591179_5039P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 07:37:27 EST, Steven Bellovin said:
> No. It was rejected because routers tended to melt down into quivering
> puddles of silicon from seeing many packets with IP options set -- a fast
> trip to the slow path. It also requires just as many changes to applications
> and DNS content, and about as large an addressing plan change as v6. There
> were more reasons, but they escape me at the moment.
Steve, you of all people should remember the other big reason why:
pathalias tended to do Very Bad Things like violating the Principle of Least
Surprise if there were two distinct nodes both called 'turtlevax' or whatever.
That, and if you think BGP convergence sucks, imagine trying to run pathalias
for a net the size of the current Internet. :)
--==_Exmh_1299591179_5039P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNdjALcC3lWbTT17ARAloeAJ4jt30qeCOG0wSWL8PTWFcOYdDJDQCgvrEb
MlqELrl7vY9EHiVNGrbuSMw=
=4Hat
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1299591179_5039P--
