> From: "George, Wes E [NTK]" <wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com>
> we happen to be very much interested in scalable routing... RIGHT
> ZARKING NOW, so that some thing might be implemented before we have to
> spend another XX million USD in a few years to buy $router_vendor 's
> next generation linecard and memory to hold the routing table. This is
> especially true if we do that upgrad e once or twice more
I'm curious about how this strong desire on your part interacts with your
prior comments about IPv6. Isn't widespread IPv6 deployment on an end-end
basis likely to dramatically increase (aka immediately come close to
doubling) the size of the routing table you have to support - and then some,
with the PI policy for IPv6 addreses?
(Yes, something like ILNP might eventually help, but it will take time to get
it implemented, and rolled out to hosts, by which time the routing table size
increase will have left the barn...)
Wouldn't some sort of 'mixed' architecture (something like Comcast) be better,
from that combined perspective?
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
