No more IP for you

[David Cantrell]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:25:33PM +0000, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2010, at 10:54, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
> > [address space fragmentation, large routing table]
> Serious question: When IPv6 grows to the same size as the existing IPv4 network, what is preventing it from also not having a similar number of prefixes? Hierarchical route aggregation is a good start, but no solution.

Right now, if you need 1024 IPv4 addresses, you might get 256 here, 128
over there, another 128 from somewhere else, and 512 in yet another
chunk of the address space.  So four routing table entries.

With IPv6, you'll just get a chunk of 1024 contiguous addresses, so one
routing table entry.

</simplification>

Sure, when IPv6 becomes 90% full (instead of merely IPv6 having as many
allocated addresses as IPv4 does) the problem will arise again, but
we'll all be dead by then so we don't care.

-- 
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

You can't judge a book by its cover, unless you're a religious nutcase