On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Vest <tv...@eyeconomics.com> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Danny McPherson <da...@arbor.net> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 12, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>> >>>> I really think that the conversation about ipv4/ipv6 and route-scaling >>>> has to understand that for the foreseeable future we're going to have >>>> to deal with both ip protocols... and in 25-30 (maybe more) years a >>>> third protocol. >>> >>> Indeed, hence my "long term transitional coexistence" phrasing :-) >> >> Sorry, I meant 'there is no transition, there is only coexistence' >> (from my perspective at least that seems to be what'll happen, of >> course no crystal balls and only 5 computers ever will be needed.) >> >> -Chris >> (and I get that you == danny get this, but for the record I think we >> should be clear that ipv4 ain't going away, ever) > > Does "ain't going away" mean that you cannot envision any time in the future > in which, say, IPv4 has the same impact on scalability concerns as RFC1918 > has today?
1918 does have scaling implications, if you carry it as internal routes... at some ISP's internal routes are ~30% of the total table size seen. It's not the same cost for everyone, but neither is a single prefix in the global table :( I also suspect (as I said before) we'll see longer than /24 routes in the global table (not leaks/mistakes) before this is all over. I don't like that concept, but I don't see an outcome that doesn't include this. -chris _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
