> - We don't currently have a fully developed plan for > aggregable, scalable IPv6 PI addressing. Some > folks are working on this problem, but no one > has claimed to have a full answer yet.
AFAIK, addressing isn't the problem, routing of non-aggregatable addresses is. > - We know that providing widely-used PI addresses in IPv6 > will result in substantially larger routing > tables than doing straight PA addressing. we don't know that. some people believe that. my belief is that such concerns are well-placed, though I don't share the belief that wide use of PI addresses inherently leads to having ISPs trying to globally route them. > - We also know that routing table size is a real scaling > factor in the IPv4 Internet, for which we have not > determined an adequate solution. my understanding is that routing table size isn't the issue for IPv4. it was once, many years ago. last I knew, the current limiting factor was the complexity of the routing computation, and the consequent time required to adapt to changes in the topology. that's subtly different than routing table size. note however that routing table size could be an issue once again with IPv6, since flat routing of large #s of /48 prefixes would presumably exhaust the forwarding table space in most routers... Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
