Folks,
This thread has been going on for days, and I've seen little but a
rehash of the "NATs are God's gift" vs. "NATs are the tool of Satan"
that's been going on forever. Now it's branched off into another thread
- almost a viral thing. If folks must continue these tired old
arguments, can this please be moved to an IPv6 forum and/or to a NAT
forum? I'm really getting tired of (a) deleting dozens of emails each
morning and/or (b) adding yet more entries to my mail filter collection.
In Larry Masinter's parlance, this seems to be all heat and little or no
light. I'm finding that I really want to unsubscribe from what has
become a high-noise, low-content list -- Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Manning [mailto:bmanning(_at_)ISI(_dot_)EDU]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 10:05 AM
To: Keith Moore
Cc: Bill Manning; Steve Deering; erosen(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Why IPv6 is a must?
%
% > % What's the realistic plan to prevent the IPv4 routing table from
growing % > % to 2^32 route entries? % >
% > trolling again? :)
% >
%
% it's about as reasonable as the question about the IPv6 routing table.
%
% Keith
%
back in the day, I told the CIDR/PIARA folks that it would be a good
idea
to plan for 2^32 entries in the routing system and was hooted from the
fora. :)
I stand in respect for Bill Fenner who has agreed to act as the routing
area
AD in guiding the effort to seek, prove, and deploy a reasonable routing
solution.
--bill