Paul, On Apr 11, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> writes: >> Growth becoming significantly more expensive is guaranteed. ... > more expensive for whom, though?
ISPs requiring space will have to pay more and I fully anticipate that cost will propagate down to end users. In (some version of) an ideal world, IPv6 would be at no cost to end users, thereby incentivizing them to encourage their favorite porn sites (et al) to offer their wares via IPv6. > unless a market in routing slots appears, there's no way for the direct > beneficiaries of deaggregation to underwrite the indirect costs of same. And that's different from how it's always been in what way? My tea leaf reading is that history will repeat itself. As it was in the mid-90's, as soon as routers fall over ISPs will deploy prefix length (or other) filters to protect their own infrastructure as everybody scrambles to come up with some hack that won't be a solution, but will allow folks to limp along. Over time, router vendors will improve their kit, ISPs will rotate out routers that can't deal with the size/flux of the bigger routing table (passing the cost on to their customers, of course), and commercial pressures will force the removal of filters. Until the next go around since IPv6 doesn't solve the routing scalability problem. The nice thing about history repeating itself is that you know when to go out and get the popcorn. Regards, -drc
