That's why we want to deploy CIDR. So we're not caught in this
bind...
That's back to the mainstream discussion now. I would hope we all
realise that CIDR is a sticking plaster and not the ultimate solution
to the possible problems in the future ? I am certainly of that mind,
and I think that "the CIDR working group" and all of us out here
should not become the "Cisco workaround comittee".
If you router is non-expandable then bitch to your supplier, be they
Cisco, Bay, the-guy-down-the-road-in-the-garage - anyone.
BTW - I have not studied the RFC's - so what will IPv6 do for us in
the contect of routeing aggregation and latger boxes etc ?
Regards,
If you router is non-expandable then bitch to your supplier, be they
Cisco, Bay, the-guy-down-the-road-in-the-garage - anyone.
I see we still have an education problem. Sigh.
The intrinsic problem is that the routing table is growing faster than
we can develop bigger routers. It's not just us. It's growing faster
than the computer industry can grow memory either. [The computer
industry doubles memory sizes every two years or so. The routing
table doubles every nine months.]
BTW - I have not studied the RFC's - so what will IPv6 do for us in
the contect of routeing aggregation and latger boxes etc ?
Absolutely Nothing. You end up back at hierarchical routing. IPv6
gets you a bigger address space, so it actually hurts in that it takes
more memory to store a prefix.
Tony