[c-nsp] OT : IPv6 - Will it hit like an "avalanch"?

[Dale W. Carder]

On Apr 2, 2008, at 3:40 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> If every end user on the Internet could get a /48 directly from
> an RIR the global BGP table would melt any router designed into slag.

It is well understood now that IPv6 really has nothing to do
with solving DFZ table bloat.

> And with IPv6, because the globally-significant part of the number
> is only on the router, if the organization is properly setup,
> renumbering is a snap, so the poor excuse that renumbering labor
> would be so high as to justify not renumbering isn't available.

That renumbering would be a snap is only true if you
ignore real-world issues like DNS, firewalls, ACL's, etc.
You can only push ULA addressing so far and we'll be
back to NATing IPv6.

> But if you don't qualify to get a portable IPv4 now, there
> is nothing magical about IPv6

I've best heard IPv6 described as "96 more bits, no magic".

> Perhaps you have some new radical way of routing IP numbers on the  
> Internet
> that your planning on introducing.  But until you introduce it, or  
> someone
> else does, the need will still exist to organize numbering on the  
> Internet in a
> heiarchical fashion,

The IRTF RRG has been exploring this problem space.

Dale