This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Havard Eidnes
he at uninett.no
Wed Jun 23 16:22:29 CEST 2004
> > Something that right now confuses *me* is: If I understand this > > correctly, the 'default-free zone' is meant to be kept below 1000 > > routes, so routers can be fast. > > The hard limit is, IMO, 8192. Past history has told us that at least some technologists have failed miserably in predicting whether fast routers can be built which handle largish routing tables. If I recall correctly, an argument similar to the above one was one of the arguments the ATM proponents used in their day: you need a short header to do fast lookups, and "fast IP routers cannot be built". History since then has at least told me that this was not entirely accurate. Therefore, I tend to view the above justification and limits with a healthy dose of scepticism. Regards, - Håvard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt (was Re: IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)")
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Fallacy by Kurt
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]