Joel M. Halpern allegedly wrote on 02/03/2010 09:49 EST: > (Robin, I am using your headline as a hook for my comments. This topic > has been bouncing and I wanted to suggest another perspective on this. > It probably has very little to do with what you were trying to get at in > your note.) > > IPv4 will clearly be around for a LONG time. > IPv4 will, I expect, continue to be used for a LOT of content for a LONG > time. > > However, I am not sure that matters for the RRG work. > > The IPv4 Internet works. The routers, and the routing system, cope with > the current pressures. To my way of looking at things, the question is > how will the Internet routing system cope with growth. > But, definitionally, there really is not that much growth left in IPv4. > > On the other hand, although IPv6 is tiny now, unless the entire Internet > stops growing, v6 will become massive. If we do not work out an > architecture that can cope with growth, when that pass the current IPv4 > size, and keeps growing faster, we will be up the proverbial creek > without any control whatsoever. > Hence, I think it is actually quite reasonable to have an architecture > and approach which only addresses IPv6 Internet Scaling. Without > denying that IPv4 will be here, and important, for a very, very, long time.
Joel, I don't quite get it. First, if you only deal with v6 then would you create two parallel Internets? If so you need routing and addressing interworking. Second, there will be pressure for growth in the number of IPv4 _prefixes_ and if we don't design a way to support it, people will find ways we don't like. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
