On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
Conservation is not an issue regarding IPv6.
...within an address block, this is true. However, what is being talked about here is "globally routeable chunks of addresses", and there conservation *is* an issue, since nothing really changes with respect to routing with IPv6 compared to IPv4.
It is best to clarify what resource we want to conserve. I don't think there is any need to conserve IPv4 addresses any more.
"IPv6 usage growth will also transform conservation of IPv4 in a non-issue."
Exponential growth is a think of the past and we have enough IPv4 addresses to last 10 to 20 years.
100% Agree. I dont want IPv6 because the world is running out of addresses, i want IPv6 because IPv6 is better than IPv4.
We also have a replacement protocol, IPv6, that is already commercially deployed in Asia and in Europe.
I usually tend to say: IPv6 is not a new protocol, it is a new protocol *version*...
However, we might still want to conserve the number of entries in the global routing table because of the impact on router memory, router CPU and the time required to reload a full view of the Internet when a router is restarted. If we refuse to give DENIC a /24 from the recovered "Class C" swamp space we would be saving a small amount of IPv4 address space but we might not save any global routing table entries...
surely...
--Michael Dillon
./Carlos -------------- IPv6 -> http://www.ip6.fccn.pt Wide Area Network Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (131586/456), naming (millions) and... people!"