Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:20 AM, paul vixie wrote:
> On 3/12/2012 5:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
I don't see backpressure. I see explosion. In the aftermath of the explosion,
cleanup crews will realize that there is no longer any feasible way to route
IPv4 and the resulting IPv4 forwarding table will become less and less
usable at such an alarming rate that people who wish to remain connected
to the internet will have no choice but to move to IPv6.
Owen