[85895] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Li)
Tue Oct 18 17:06:16 2005
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051017171601.07805b08@mail.amaranth.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:05:12 -0700
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Daniel,
> But wasn't that the rationale for originally putting the kitchen
> sink into IPv6, rather than fixing the address length issue?
The stated rationale was to fix the address length issue.
> I think we missed a lot of opportunities.
Amen.
> We're 10 years on, and talking about whether there will need to be
> more than one massive pain of migration, because the kitchen sink
> didn't take into account multihoming.
More generally because we were unwilling to make changes to the
routing architecture.
> Now we're talking about a solution that appear to be an even worse
> Rube Goldberg than token ring source-route bridging.
No one has proposed anything that is as bad as the exponential
traffic explosion caused by explorers.
> Moore will likely have to continue to produce the solution.
What happens if he can't? Silicon technology *is* topping out. What
happens to v6 if every single household and business on the planet
decides to multihome?
Tony
