Re: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-00.txt

At 08:32 20/07/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>In reality /64 is an architectural boundary, even if in theory
>it isn't. I don't believe that revisiting this is realistic. And I don't
>believe it is in the least necessary.

Dear Brian,
i am afraid this is orthogonal:
- "In reality /64 is an architectural boudary", means it is because of the 
practice, common thinking, etc.
- "I don't believe that revisiting this is realistic", means such 
revisiting would come from a proposition.

You cannot impeach a new practice. One of the rules of network design is 
"whatever is possible to try and is fun or brings money or worries to 
someone will be used". But you can certainly propose ways towards a better 
(network wise) support of such new practices. I suppose that you refer to 
/64 in what we could name the "legacy" environment (the way the Internet is 
today). Now think of a totally different approach of the Internet (we can 
actually support 6 full ones with the /3 blocs) where a user could get far 
less InterfaceIDs (and be happy with it) because for example the routing 
system and ganularity would be different, or hardware would change, or NGN, 
or MGN, or etc.

Up to now, what has been investigated is what IPv6 can bring to the 
network. I think another interesting approach is to start from a universal 
numbering space and investigate what IPv6 could bring to it (with the 
current technology or not) and to all its constituents. May be the way to 
understand how to deploy IPv6 faster instead of selling it slowly?

jfc




_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6