Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 15:17:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Philip A. Prindeville" <philipp@enteka.com>
Message-Id: <199708152217.PAA01394@enteka.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: sequence numbers
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Dean Gaudet <dgaudet@arctic.org>
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: sequence numbers

> P.S. I'm not a fan of IPv6.  I don't think it solves the problems people
> think it solves.  In particular it does *not* solve the problem of having
> global routing tables with 50k routes in them.  It exacerbates that
> problem.  And there's no immediate need for ip address space.  There are
> still ISPs wasting entire /24 prefixes on ISDN customers with two machines
> in their house.  I'm not alone with these opinions ... and I doubt we'll
> see IPv6 replacing IPv4 for another five years. 

Well, it does offer a better approach to the problem with the number
of routes...

Because you have a larger numbering space, you can structure it more.
More structure means more levels of heirarchy, so that you can do better
aggregation (which is why CIDR was deployed in the first place).

CIDR, after all, introduced a 4th level of structure:  CIDR block,
network number, subnet number, host address.  Only problem is that
goons like Sun are still shipping machines that don't understand
CIDR.

Another thing it offers is well-known addresses, so that you could
address a group of machines in a URI (for instance) that have a
common sub-tree, instead of having multiple URIs for the same file.
You could then route to the best (or "closest", or "least congested")
server.

I think this is not the best place to discuss this.

-Philip