> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(_at_)wasabisystems(_dot_)com>
> 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.
How does the fact that they are somewhat unrelated issues in any way refute
the criticism of IPv6 regarding its lack of a solution to routing issues?
> As you note, there is no distinction between solving the global routing
> problem in a v4 or v6 context. The same algorithms can be used for
> either. If new algorithms are developed, they can be deployed for
> either.
The reasoning here is faulty. The fault lies in the assumption that whatever
fix is found can be deployed in IPv4 (and thus, since the two are so similar,
in IPv6). In fact, many people see IPv4 as fundamentally flawed in its basic
structure, when it comes to supporting a true "next generation" routing
architecture - and so, by extension, IPv6 is equally fundamentally flawed
(since it's just IPv4 with a large address).
Noel