[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Geoff Huston]

At 08:18 AM 24/01/2006, Daniel Golding wrote:

>That is proof by assertion. The routing table has grown relatively slowly,

Relative to what?

>and there is NO reason to think it will grow faster under IPv6.

Given that there are few natural constraints to routing table bloat other
than an advanced state of social consciousness, the drivers for IPv6
routing table bloat appear to include a vastly larger end device population
and a commodity utility provider structure that cares little about spending
time (and money) to take measures to avoid routing table expansion.
That would appear to constitute grounds for thinking that, yes,
there is a distinct risk of IPv6 route table bloat at levels greater
than we've seen in IPv4.

So under what basis have you reached an opposite conclusion?

>The argument
>seems to be that IPv6 will have a much longer lifetime than IPv4, so we have
>to plan for 20 or 50 years from now.

Yes, among other considerations that  consideration exists, yes.

>Trying to plan past 10 or so years in technology seems foolish.


On the other hand believing that the industry will spend in excess of
10**9 dollars every decade or so to undertake a complete technology
shift also seems somewhat fanciful.

There is some credibility to the proposition that IPv6 will be around
for many decades to come, and it does appear to be a sad repetition
of some of the known mistakes we made with IPv4 if we were to
deliberately take a short term approach to IPv6.


regards,

     Geoff Huston