Re: [rrg] draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05.txt

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, thank you.  That would address my concern.  I was reading 
"extrapolate ... would look like" in a broader sense than you intended.
Yours,
Joel

Thomas Narten wrote:
>> What you propose to add is good.  But, the text in 4.6 as written claims 
>> "It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 routing table 
>> would be if wide spread adoption of IPv6 occurred..."
> 
> Ah. Is your issue more narrow in the sense that this statement is
> misleading?
> 
> The extrapolation is intended for "today" not for "next year" or "ten
> years from now".
> 
> You must be assuming that the exising pressures that contribute to
> problems will get worse (I tend to agree!). But, that doesn't really
> have anything to do with IPv6. I.e., IPv6 doesn't make those pressures
> stronger or lesser.  They will also get worse with IPv4.
> 
>> the extrapolation that then takes place assumes that the same factors 
>> that currently constrain IPv4 sizes would constrain IPvb6 sizes, and 
>> that seems extremely unlikely.  Hence, this extrapolation is very 
>> optimistic, and misleading to the reader.
> 
> How about if I change the statement as follows:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 Internet
>    routing table would be if widespread IPv6 adoption occurred, from the
>    current IPv4 Internet routing table.  
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    It is possible to extrapolate what the size of the IPv6 Internet
>    routing table might look like today, from the current IPv4 Internet
>    routing table, if widespread IPv6 adoption were to occur
>    "instantaneously",
> 
> Then, at the end of the paragraph add something like:
> 
>    Of course, this estimate is based on a current snapshot of IPv4
>    routing activity. Unless the pressures described elsewhere in this
>    document are reduced, the actual table size would be larger.
> 
> Would that address your concern?   
> 
> Thomas   
>