[82151] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Jul 8 16:03:47 2005
In-Reply-To: <59A442ECD83D0F408ECEA3A84D3AE2EC03090BC8@bre2k26p>
Cc: "Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.net>,
"Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi@niif.hu>,
"Daniel Golding" <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
"Scott McGrath" <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>, <nanog@merit.edu>
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:35:14 -0700
To: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Christian,
On Jul 7, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
>>> What's the problem with independent address space for every entity
>>> (company, family, enterprise) which wants it?
>> It doesn't scale. Regardless of Moore's law, there are some
>> fundamental physical limits that constrain technology.
> Once you add that bit of reality to it, the scaling requirement goes
> down substantially. Wouldn't you agree?
My feeling is that the question isn't how much memory, but rather how
much CPU and bandwidth is necessary to deal with routing thrash.
Yes, you can aggregate different things to try to reduce the number
of entries, but that would seem to go against the general idea Alexei
was suggesting. I mean, I'm an entity, and it'd be cool to have my
own routed PI address and not have to deal with reconfiguring my
network when I took my laptop from work to home...
Rgds,
-drc
