IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Tom Vest <tvest@eyeconomics.com> Fri, 12 February 2010 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tvest@eyeconomics.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEE828C16A for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:50:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eUlnT970hS2K for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.59.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7642928C129 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:50:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id h01Z1d0041uE5Es5D4rpUo; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:51:49 +0000
Received: from [172.16.1.4] ([76.104.56.12]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id h4ta1d00S0FpAv83c4taxz; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:53:35 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Tom Vest <tvest@eyeconomics.com>
In-Reply-To: <75cb24521002120845yc31fddex9f81479d3819030b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:51:45 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0BAC5D11-0509-40D1-A941-12AA770627EB@eyeconomics.com>
References: <32101_1265251077_ZZg0Q4CoNw0Le.00_4B6A32F8.4080800@firstpr.com.au> <48225D32-CD3B-4AE0-BFC6-5535B12BF519@wisc.edu> <75cb24521002041918l4820395dh9524b280a2b00d32@mail.gmail.com> <672B9734-BF8B-4B18-933C-4DEEC49ACA32@castlepoint.net> <75cb24521002051030v29b9183cq823c0d59b70fffe8@mail.gmail.com> <0503A92D-D633-4C19-8FA6-3CFD9FD5CD77@arbor.net> <75cb24521002120839i3c12afd6w1d04e9369ae000c3@mail.gmail.com> <EFC1EFA4-DA09-4FFD-8140-63A8F5C74577@arbor.net> <75cb24521002120845yc31fddex9f81479d3819030b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:50:30 -0000

On Feb 12, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Danny McPherson <danny@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?

TV

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email