Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There is a school of thought that seems to believe that IPv6 is a > > failure because it only solves a quite narrow although extremely > > important problem -- specifically address space exhaustion. > > > > The fact that it does not solve the global routing table meltdown is, > > according to such people, an obvious failure of v6 -- never mind that > > they are unrelated issues. > > addressing and routing are intimately related, inextricably intertwined, > etc. etc.
Of course. However, we only know one way to do addressing right now, and it is the same paradigm in v4 and v6. People frequently propose "endpoint identifiers" and "routing identifiers" be separated but no one has ever come up with a worked proposal that was less flawed than the current mechanism. In any case, anyone who doesn't propose dumping v4 because the addressing is "wrong" should have no trouble with the way that v6 addressing is done in general. -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- NetBSD Development, Support & CDs. http://www.wasabisystems.com/
