Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
> On Mar 12, 2012, at 10:20 AM, paul vixie wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.
that will not happen and cannot happen. current revenue and forecasted
new revenue throughout and after an explosion of this kind, will be
IPv4. that's what will be protected. if some network operators can make
out-of-cycle upgrades to allow for 2M (or 4M or whatever) routes, and
others say no this is crazy let's just switch to IPv6, then current and
future revenue will move from the latter operators to the former.
thank you for explaining your assumptions in any case.
paul