IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rrg] IPv4 & IPv6 routing scaling problems

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 12 February 2010 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 0635A3A7733 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:44:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.174, 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 U-1kPN0AOYzZ for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iw0-f186.google.com (mail-iw0-f186.google.com [209.85.223.186]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D05C3A771C for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iwn16 with SMTP id 16so3122233iwn.10 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:45:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=HnZQZYKgZpI9WjV2yEmIJnAHMgMjg0Tp7GltfSPlV24=; b=aS7aZpU/Dn+vAVEmv/blM+ZM6V5IuJmBV8YKSQTed7OkvhRs6fGpBpRoDvc8u0H69k jUL/5iPo0tBVNPNGIGFmTbmUt869YFoRBTfiZFJwuLTB1rKHSXBzoIzJxEXtbfiGNuB/ nMaX0Hb/HHgXcLL9b8mWJr7I6umVXQ0pwRbEo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=N+/ialwcE563SH2vb8JEbLYmPwXsGkCgiru1iqzyBRfZJNQhX+Q7t+5IS57NyJGBjp 9dC0kr1+Ur+VfuMcjhRuu+rB66XvOK9eAAhYENeDYSexRsLdWC7atxR6CbaSJqs8wvCK YZ+mjAGYhtgg5jeMJa7LgQGyAU/fp7/gRY/js=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.150.199 with SMTP id z7mr55016ibv.45.1265993148997; Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:45:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <EFC1EFA4-DA09-4FFD-8140-63A8F5C74577@arbor.net>
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>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:45:48 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: acaee5155895bb96
Message-ID: <75cb24521002120845yc31fddex9f81479d3819030b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Danny McPherson <danny@arbor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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 16:44:31 -0000

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)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email