Subject: [[email-masked]: Re: [RRG] Thoughts on the RRG/Routing Space Problem]

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 09:09:06 -0800

(another from wrong userid)

----- Forwarded message from Scott Brim <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:41:49 -0800
From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [RRG] Thoughts on the RRG/Routing Space Problem
To: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Cc: Russ White <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
X-Mailer: VM 8.0.5-504 under Emacs 22.1.1 (i386-apple-darwin8.10.1)

Excerpts from Brian E Carpenter at 15:03:37 +1300 on Mon  3 Dec 2007:
> On 2007-12-02 02:24, Russ White wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> > 2. An exponentially growing table of short prefixes, facilitated by the
> > huge IPv6 address space (as Tony has pointed out, routing /32's in IPv6
> > is the same thing as routing hosts in IPv4, so you've gained nothing in
> > table size if you go in that direction).
> 
> Er, yes, there's a reason that the IPv6 design assumes
> provider-based aggregation of prefixes, and multiple prefixes if you
> have multiple providers. The PI heresy is an import from IPv4
> thinking. But if that heresy sweeps the world, we're going to need
> LISP style mapping to exorcise it from the core. I think that's how
> we got here.

So it's let's-have-fun-with-rhetoric day, eh?  We got here because of
the rate*state problems, of which PI allocations are a small part.
Once we got here, we discovered that we potentially had the freedom to
abandon the dogma that you are clinging to.  (At this point I believe
you're supposed to say "I find your lack of faith disturbing").

----- End forwarded message -----

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg