Re: And Now for Something Completely Different (was Re: IPv6 news)

["Alexei Roudnev" <alex () relcom net>]

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