Paul A Vixie
paul at vix.com
Wed Aug 16 19:29:31 UTC 1995
> The most serious problem we're facing is NOT how to route to the existing
> allocations, but how we're going to route to all the new allocations that are
> due to the exponential growth of the Internet.
New allocations are (as of 1466bis) being done through providers, on CIDRized
lines. Whether IPv4 or IPv6, new allocations are not going to badly impact
the core routing table size.
> With this in mind, why do you think that IPv6 allocation would be any
> different than CIDR IPv4 allocations (which is how all the new
> allocations suppose to be done) ? So far all the documents I've seen on
> IPv6 address allocation are quite similar to IPv4 address allocation
They're identical, because CIDR works and there's no reason to stop using it;
in fact there's every reason to go on using it, especially given that longer
addresses would otherwise lead to longer (and more numerous) prefixes.
> > that's the _plan_, mind you.
> I think this is not even "the _plan_". I think that is what some of
> us could wish be "the plan".
I've seen no evidence that IPv6 addresses will be allocated on anything other
than CIDR lines. There are crackpots who think otherwise, but there are always
crackpots. CIDR works. The IAB's job is to make sure the internet works. QED.
More information about the NANOG