Re: [sig-policy] prop-101 Returned to mailing list and Newversionposted
On Mar 12, 2012, at 9:57 AM, paul vixie wrote:
> On 3/12/2012 7:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> ...
>> Bottom line, if we can get rid of the massive IPv4 RIB/FIB mess in the
>> next 5 years, we've got more than enough headroom to allow aggregation
>> to be a concern of the past.
>
> this assumes one of three things, none of which i expect.
>
> so, you could get this result if ipv4 use declines "in the next 5 years"
> (or even "in the next 15 years").
>
> or, you could get this result if the post-greenfield ipv4 address
> allocation system (a "market") leads to aggressive re-aggregation
> (whereas i'm expecting explosive de-aggregation).
>
Actually, as I have said many times before, I expect that the market
will cause massive deaggregation in IPv4 which will likely force
IPv4 use to decline as it will simply become infeasible to route.
> or finally, you could get this result if a market occurs in RIB/FIB
> slots (which in turn led to re-aggregation.)
I don't expect this to occur. Rather, I expect IPv4 to quite probably collapse
under its own weight due to market-based deaggregation.
> if i'm wrong and there's some other enabling assumption behind your
> prediction, please say more.
>
Not really some other enabling assumption, just a different assumption
about how the first two options you describe will interoperate.
Owen