nanog mailing list archives
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
From: David Conrad <david.conrad () nominum com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:35:14 -0700
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
Current thread:
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008, (continued)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Jeroen Massar (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Randy Bush (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 James (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Nils Ketelsen (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Andre Oppermann (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 David Conrad (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 07)
- RE: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Brad Knowles (Jul 07)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Alexei Roudnev (Jul 08)
- Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008 Scott McGrath (Jul 08)