[address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call

> Havard Eidnes wrote:
> From what I've picked up from reputable sources, we're pushing
> the limits, and Moore's law does not appear to apply to the
> rather specialized market of humungous TCAM chips.  I'm not
> sufficiently of an optimist that I think we won't hit a
> technological limit in the case of us collectively injecting
> too much entropy into the global routing table.

Getting back to the policy part and not the technicalities of forwarding
plane implementation: this is not the point.

Keep in mind that part the very design of IPv6 is precisely the
uncertainties around hitting a wall at some point. 10 years ago, I
defended your position for the same reasons you do, and I am not among
those saying that there is no risk, or that it will work the next 20
years the same way it worked the past 20. Nobody has a crystal ball.

Here is the point: now the name of the game is no longer making it
right, it's making it happen at all. We do not have the luxury of
contemplating a 15 year deployment horizon anymore. What we are weighing
in now are 2 opposite risks: the risk of hitting a wall in DFZ size in
the future, against the risk of a total deployment failure.

Michel.