[arin-ppml] Portable address space vs. IPv6 auto-numbering

Paul Vixie paul at vix.com
Wed Jun 11 10:23:28 EDT 2008

robin, thanks for this and for yesterday's message on this thread (Message-ID:
<484F3A4E.5010802 at firstpr.com.au>).  your explainations of the outstanding
issues are clear and concise and i hope you will blog them somewhere so that
this mailing list won't be the only permanent record of what you said.

most important thing i've learned is that RRG hasn't got consensus on whether
or not to try to save IPv4.  you wrote:

	If the RRG decides that it doesn't need to solve the IPv4 routing
	scaling problem, then there is plenty of time to come up with an IPv6
	solution with a wider variety of potential techniques and fewer
	backward compatibility reasons than would be the case for an IPv4

while i am not a member of RRG, if the question is drawn as clearly as that,
my position would be, forget about IPv4.  the internet will have many more
than 2^32 devices connected to it simultaneously within our lifetimes, and i
think we should preserve the option of not using NAT in future generations.
therefore IPv4's growth has a glass ceiling formed by its address size, and
any effort that's put into growing its routing table has a fixed return.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list