Re: Sequentially assigned IP addresses--why not?

[Donald E. Eastlake 3rd]

If IPv4 multihoming is leading to exponential growth of the routing
tables, maybe that's what will kill IPv4 and push people to IPv6.  My
understanding is that in IPv6 things are better because, to some
extent, you can multihome by having multiple addresses assigned by
your different providers.  Of course that can add a new exponentiality
based on your depth in the provider/sub-provder tree....

Donald

From:  Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:  Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:11:49 +1000
To:  "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>At 04:40 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>Look at it this way.  We have about 75K routes in the "default-free
>>zone" now.
>
>No - that was March 2000 - now we have about 87,000 (www.telstra.net/ops/bgp)
>
>>...
>
>There are a number of scenarios which will make the routing system
>crash and burn - this is one of them. On the other hand even doing
>nothing will be a problem - we appear to have resumed exponential
>growth of the routing system again, presumably as multi-homing at
>the edges starts to be more and more common.
>
>   Geoff Huston
>
>