Alan Olsen wrote: | > Addresses will not be easily 'transferable.' The IETF is | >discussing a 'Best Current Practices' document that talks about | >address portability. Basically, it can't happen, because the routers | >only have so much memory, and the routers at the core of the internet | >can't keep in memory how to reach every one; there needs to be | >aggregation. The only feasible aggregation seems to be provider | >based, ie, MCI, Alternet, and other large ISPs get blocks of | >addresses. They give them to smaller companies, like got.net, which | >gives them to customers. The result? The core routers have a few | >more years. | | A good point. Having parts of subnet shifting around could be pretty painful | from an admin point of view. Its not an admin's point of view thats worrisome. Whats worrisome is that the routers at the core of the net only have so much memory, and if the routing tables grow beyond that, we're all hosed, becuase the core of the internet will start thrashing. So, in essense, you taking your network address with you when you switch providers ('address portability' causes costs that must be borne by the entire global internet. | What is the timeline for implementation of IPv6? Good question. I think the address allocation just went to last call, which means that we should have a policy for getting IPv6 addresses pretty soon. After that, you need to wait for your router vendor to announce an IPv6 capable version. I'd guess it will be six to eighteen months before you can call Netcom and ask for an IPv6 PPP connection. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume