I'll readily grant that judgment calls such as I am making are subject
to the whims of reality.
In fact, if we do not get a reasonable, deployable, usable, multihoming
and multiconnectivity solution for IPv6, then it won't matter whether
folks bury v4 in prefixes, or switch to v6.
Conversely, if we do have a good solution, that is less painful than the
various de-aggregation drivers for IPv4, we have a good shot at moving
people because the pain is going to be quite high.
I would be happy to see an answer that also helped v4. But I think that
is a distinctly secondary consideration.
Yours,
Joel
Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <j...@joelhalpern.com>
> definitionally, there really is not that much growth left in IPv4.
Not necessarily; mind, I don't _know_ that there is going to be more growth,
but I can see plausible circumstances where there is continued substantial
growth in the number of routes in the DFZ.
E.g. if some organizations which currently have large chunks of the
globally-visible IPv4 namespace drop back to using smaller chunks of the that
namespace, and the chunks they return are broken up into many smaller pieces
for use by a number of currently non-connected entities.
The exact shape of the future can be awfully hard to predict. If you'd asked
people back in 1995 if we'd be here today, people would probably have gawked
at you... Never say 'Never'... :-)
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
