[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

[Michel Py]

>>> Michael Dillon wrote:
>>> At the end of the day, it is possible to optimize by
>>> processing fewer bits

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> This would have been true in the past, but not anymore. By the
>> time the size of the routing table is so big that it requires
>> optimization, there will be no processor that does not have a
>> 64-bit core and processing 64-bit elements will be as fast as
>> processing 32-bit elements.

> Michael Dillon wrote:
> This may be true in the domain of trendy laptop and
> desktop computers, but I cannot believe that it will
> be true overall. We still have millions of 8-bit CPUs
> being built into devices every year and there is nothing
> on the horizon that indicates manufacturers will stop

Totally irrelevant. We are talking about routers that have a full view
of the global routing table here. Cisco 7600 or 12000 or CRS-1. Juniper
M or T series. These are not built on 8-bit processors. Are you planning
on running an ISP core on Linksys gear? Gee, even my PDA has a 16-bit
processor.

This argument about optimization does not hold water. Besides, and as
pointed out by several other contributors, policies can be changed
rather quickly. Have a single vendor come forward and say that they
would like sites to get a /32 instead of a /48 because it makes their
life easier and we'll consider it.

A site is a /48, has always been, and this what a site will get. I will
add that that allocation policies are indeed RIR matter, addressing
architecture is an IETF matter and if you want sites to be redefined you
need to bring the matter before the IETF not here.


> Owen DeLong wrote:
> Trying to drive policy into insanely large allocations for
> multihomed organizations that may be no larger than a dorm room

Gee, do you know any that would do this? People who would have a public
ASN for their home or their dorm? What a waste.


Michel.