Randy; we are living on Earth with small size (only 6,000 km in radius), so we will never see unlimited grouth in multihomed networks. It is not a problem. We are not building Internet for the whole universe. Good old Moore can deal with our planet very well. I repeated many times - IPv6 idea of changing multihome approach is VERY BAD and will not survise for more that 1 - 2 years. (if IPv6 survive at all, which I have many doubts about). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> To: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@burtongroup.com> Cc: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>; "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>; "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)
There is a fundamental difference between a one-time reduction in the table and a fundamental dissipation of the forces that cause it to bloat in the first place. Simply reducing the table as a one-off only buys you linearly more time. Eliminating the drivers for bloat buys you technology generations.
If we're going to put the world thru the pain of change, it seems that we should do our best to ensure that it never, ever has to happen again.
That's the goal here? To ensure we'll never have another protocol transition? I hope you realize what a flawed statement that is.
tony probably did not think about it because that's not what he said at all. he was speaking of routing table bloat, not transitions.
and he was spot on.
randy