Jonathan,

> Huh? Who mentioned theoretical arguments?  Not me, I'm talking engineering.

As am I, actually, since I'm not capable of anything else.  I don't think
the work you choose to describe it changes my argument one iota, however.
That is, since the degree of insufficiency of the ID space is inversely
related to bandwidth, then if a 12k sequence space is insufficient now
for engineering reasons, then a 64k sequence space is certain to be
insufficient 3 years from now for the same reasons.

> People do run NFS over UDP over gig-e. that's just a fact.

I even know people who have managed to get about 4 Gbps out of a single
stream (Fast) TCP session on a 10 Gbps path from Sunnyvale to Geneva, and
I know the routers they were using were easily capable of doing fraqmentation
at this rate, so if 12k is insufficient at 1 Gbps then 64k is already nearly
insufficient as well.

> I think the phrase "breaking IP" is justified. (I think it was kre's,
> but I'm not 100% certain).

Again, if 12k breaks IP now then we won't have too wait long for 64k to
break IP as well.

I don't think either of those numbers necessarily breaks anything.  What
I would agree with is that 64k is better than 12k, so the reduction to
12k had better be buying me something really important.  In this case
I don't believe it is worth it, but I think that view needs to be supported
on a cost-versus-benefit basis, rather than a this-is-broken-that-isn't
basis, since the latter either isn't true now or won't be true shortly.

Dennis Ferguson