[298] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIDR FAQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Yakov Rekhter)
Wed Aug 16 11:24:08 1995
To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
cc: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>, peter@demon.net, nathan@netrail.net,
dsiegel@net99.net, jon@branch.com, sob@academ.com, bwatson@mci.net,
jerry@fc.net, inet-access@earth.com, HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il,
nanog@merit.edu, local-ir@ripe.net, iap@vma.cc.nd.edu, yakov@cisco.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 95 07:31:04 PDT."
<9508161431.AA19163@gw.home.vix.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 08:07:48 PDT
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Paul,
> the plan is that IPv6 addresses will be allocated hierarchically from day 1,
> and with proxy aggregation it should be possible for sean's stated goal of
> "4 routes in the table on some defaultless networks" to be reached.
>
> the routing table is no longer doubling every nine months. we've been sort
> of hanging out in the 25,000 - 30,000 range for almost six months now.
>
> the largest single component of the table size comes from old allocations of
> class c nets, which are 2/3 the total.
>
> thus if ipv6 actually comes to pass, and we do start over with new prefixes
> allocated pseudohierarchically, we may have a lot fewer prefixes, each taking
> more memory than an ipv4 prefix, yet taking dramatically less memory overall.
The most serious problem we're facing is NOT how to route to the existing
allocations, but how we're going to route to all the new allocations that are
due to the exponential growth of the Internet.
With this in mind, why do you think that IPv6 allocation would be any
different than CIDR IPv4 allocations (which is how all the new
allocations suppose to be done) ? So far all the documents I've seen on
IPv6 address allocation are quite similar to IPv4 address allocation
documents.
> that's the _plan_, mind you.
I think this is not even "the _plan_". I think that is what some of
us could wish be "the plan".
Yakov.
