Owen DeLong wrote:
However, since you don’t like Comcast, let’s try another one that has few (if any) mergers involved:
I don't think so.
AS6939 — 125 prefixes...
Are you spamming?
Admittedly some of this appears to be TE routes, but compare with:
2001::/32 2001:470::/32 2001:470:1A::/48 2001:DF2:7900::/48
If you are saying some merger happened before v6 transition, which explains why there are less v6 prefix than v4, I can agree with you. But, so what?
Without automatic renumbering, IPv6 is of no help against mergers.
Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 27 IPv6 prefixes = 270 prefixes. Merging 10 organizations each of whom have 125 IPv4 prefixes = 1250 prefixes.
The number of prefixes by swamp is recognized to be not a problem even when we were discussing it in 1998 when there was only less than 50000 prefixes.
Sure, but the number of multi homed sites is way _WAY_ less than the IPv4 routing table size.
Yeah, not quite the whole story in that one word… Let's look at what is driving that increase in "multihoming"…
OK. You admit that the problem is caused by multihoming. OK.
I don't think I must explain the current routing practice here.
You don’t need to explain the current routing practice, but if you want to be taken seriously, simply assuming that every possible /24 in IPv4 and/or every possible /48 in IPv6 will be eventually advertised is a case of reductio ad absurdum. I was trying to give you a chance to provide a better argument for your position.
I don't think I need such chance as my argument is already good enough.
While I appreciate that you enjoy speaking to people in condescending tones, looking at the history and current trends shows that we are in a period where Moore's law is leveling off.
I'm afraid you are not very familiar with semiconductor technology trend. Masataka Ohta