On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:07 AM, Michel Py <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> Havard Eidnes wrote:
> From what I've picked up from reputable sources, we're pushing
> the limits, and Moore's law does not appear to apply to the
> rather specialized market of humungous TCAM chips.  I'm not
> sufficiently of an optimist that I think we won't hit a
> technological limit in the case of us collectively injecting
> too much entropy into the global routing table.

Getting back to the policy part and not the technicalities of forwarding
plane implementation: this is not the point.

Keep in mind that part the very design of IPv6 is precisely the
uncertainties around hitting a wall at some point. 10 years ago, I
defended your position for the same reasons you do, and I am not among
those saying that there is no risk, or that it will work the next 20
years the same way it worked the past 20. Nobody has a crystal ball.

Here is the point: now the name of the game is no longer making it
right, it's making it happen at all. We do not have the luxury of
contemplating a 15 year deployment horizon anymore. What we are weighing
in now are 2 opposite risks: the risk of hitting a wall in DFZ size in
the future, against the risk of a total deployment failure.


Blowing up the DFZ zone wont accelerate the deployement of IPv6, in opposite, it will make harder to maintain the IPv4 service as well.

The crucial points of the delay of IPv6 deployement are the following

- load balancing at the content provision providers' site;
- home network transition;
- traffic monitoring at the entreprise, where the enterprise management would like to control and monitor, what is going on.

For the later point the Obama administration defined a deadline of September 2012, if I remember well.

There is a new working group at IETF for home network transition, started this summer.

Unfortunatly the loadbalancing issues are vendor specifics.

So these issues create delay, unfortunately.

I still missed the arguments why would provide any help in the transition if PI allocations would be "liberized", just to be pleased for a small set of PI belivers?

If PI belivers happen to complete their transition as the last ones, in two yeears -- should we care?

Blowing up the DFZ is a big problem. It should not happen in the near future.

Thanks,

Géza