Folks, This thread has been going on for days, and I've seen little but a rehash of the "NATs are God's gift" vs. "NATs are the tool of Satan" that's been going on forever. Now it's branched off into another thread - almost a viral thing. If folks must continue these tired old arguments, can this please be moved to an IPv6 forum and/or to a NAT forum? I'm really getting tired of (a) deleting dozens of emails each morning and/or (b) adding yet more entries to my mail filter collection. In Larry Masinter's parlance, this seems to be all heat and little or no light. I'm finding that I really want to unsubscribe from what has become a high-noise, low-content list -- Ian
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Manning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:05 AM To: Keith Moore Cc: Bill Manning; Steve Deering; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must? % % > % What's the realistic plan to prevent the IPv4 routing table from growing % > % to 2^32 route entries? % > % > trolling again? :) % > % % it's about as reasonable as the question about the IPv6 routing table. % % Keith % back in the day, I told the CIDR/PIARA folks that it would be a good idea to plan for 2^32 entries in the routing system and was hooted from the fora. :) I stand in respect for Bill Fenner who has agreed to act as the routing area AD in guiding the effort to seek, prove, and deploy a reasonable routing solution. --bill