5 Apr
2005
5 Apr
'05
7:38 a.m.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 13:38:10 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: >gert, i am too busy to find the quote for you right now, but >the essence is that EVERY size limit that has EVER been done >in computing has proved to be to small in the long run. *Please* do math. The limit is the number of atoms on earth, however we should consider the aliens ... It has also been proven that EVERY memory size problem has been solved so far. >so perhape prudence in the presence of finite resource is not >stupid. >if v6's only feature is that you can be wasteful of >the space, that is still not going to sell it. To some degree I agree: - If IPv6 only feature is that you have a large address space, *which can't be routed*, it won't sell. The equivalent would be a 20 digit postal zip code with just 5 digits used by the postman, but the other 15 validated by an address controller just to check that post office customers have fully read and understood the zip code rules book with it's 1000 pages ;-/ We don't need a protocol with 128 Bit address space (a decimal number with *38* decimal digits) nor 64 Bit (a decimal number with *19* decimal digits) global addresses *if we can't route this space globally* and thus *again* have all the renumbering pain which we have with IPv4 in the case of a technical or ISP change. *Either* we are sure that engineers and vendors will be able to provide at least the routing performance of IPv4 for IPv6 and hopefully *significantly better*, then we should stop this "let us restrict everything" discussion. We can sell products, but we can't sell restrictions. Or we don't believe this, then we should stop considering IPv6 as new protocol for the global internet. Best Regards Oliver P.s.: And no, there are not enough *intranet* VPN's to justify switching to a new *internet* protocol. In such cases IPv6 may be used internally up to the gateway. Oliver Bartels F+E + Bartels System GmbH + 85435 Erding, Germany oliver@bartels.de + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-8122-9729-0