[82162] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Jul 8 16:04:16 2005
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Cc: "Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz@bellsouth.com>,
"Alexei Roudnev" <alex@relcom.net>,
"Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi@niif.hu>,
"Daniel Golding" <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
"Scott McGrath" <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:35:14 PDT."
<885D3ED1-2EE0-431B-A51A-8935E2A34081@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:13:13 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
In message <885D3ED1-2EE0-431B-A51A-8935E2A34081@nominum.com>, David Conrad wri
tes:
>
>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.
That's right. The issues are the complexity of the routing computation
and the convergence time/stability of the routing computation as a
whole.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
