Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:57 AM, paul vixie wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> or, you could get this result if the post-greenfield ipv4 address
>> allocation system (a "market") leads to aggressive re-aggregation
>> (whereas i'm expecting explosive de-aggregation).
> Actually, as I have said many times before, I expect that the market
> will cause massive deaggregation in IPv4 which will likely force
> IPv4 use to decline as it will simply become infeasible to route.
i don't think most dual stack network operators are using separate
routers, nor routers having separate RIB or FIB resources, for IPv6.
therefore if IPv4 explosively de-aggregates, it will hurt BGP stability
for IPv4 and IPv6 equally.
i therefore see no back pressure against explosive IPv4 deaggregation,
absent a new market in RIB/FIB slots. "steady state" in this case means
a hunt-and-peck search for the point at which post-greenfield IPv4 space
has vanishingly low market value because too many routers around the
world are near their architectural capacity limits. i argue that none of
us will enjoy that search process, possibly excepting router vendors and
the largest ISP's who can afford to reinvest ahead of their normal
depreciation cycle.
paul