Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
for all these reasons, large or multihoming endsystems will need V6 PI allocations and at some point the RIRs are going to have to define/allow this.
I find your attitude in this regard disturbing, especially as:
(note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of arin's board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.)
You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the public good.
actually, i'm just trying to keep my role as member-elect of arin's BoT separate from my role as an internet citizen. as it turns out, arin's BoT does not have a policy formation role. when this issue comes up in PPML or the AC, i'll speak up, but i'll be explicitly hatless when i do.
While you're high and dry, the hoi polloi can renumber while at the same time suffering increased ISP costs because of the unnecessarily high hardware costs created by all those PI prefixes. In other words, today's equivalent of "let them eat cake".
you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role.
It also shows contempt for the IETF, as you reject all possible alternatives to PI out of hand.
i never rejected all possibilities, just the ones i've personally studied so far. i'm also on record as saying that the easiest time to have fixed this was before the current IPng approach was annointed; now we're playing catchup. even you in your multi6 role ought to be wishing that more had been done before "IPv6" was cast in stone.
there is no possibility that any enterprise where i am responsible for planning or design will ever run PA addresses out to the desktop -- it makes multihoming impossible, which would leave me at the mercy of a single provider's uptime, and a single provider's pricing.
Work is underway to remedy this. However, if the RIRs decide to open up PI in IPv6, people will take the quick fix and there won't be any push to get the (admittedly) more complex but more scalable solutions to these problems off the ground.
somehow i don't think that's going to sway wal-mart's thinking at all, but i do look forward to a lively debate next time this comes up on PPML. the codification of the current approach as "IPng" in spite of objections raised at that time amounted to a recommendation of "let them eat NAT."
On 21-nov-04, at 20:05, Paul Vixie wrote:
(note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of arin's board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.)
You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the public good.
actually, i'm just trying to keep my role as member-elect of arin's BoT separate from my role as an internet citizen. as it turns out, arin's BoT does not have a policy formation role. when this issue comes up in PPML or the AC, i'll speak up, but i'll be explicitly hatless when i do.
I've never been a great believer in hat switching. Even if it is possible to fully separate different roles internally, things get blurry in the perception of others. In your case "we made him a member of the ARIN board of trustees so it would be stupid not to listen to him".
you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role.
Please explain them then.
It also shows contempt for the IETF, as you reject all possible alternatives to PI out of hand.
i never rejected all possibilities, just the ones i've personally studied so far.
Well, then the question is: how up to date are you with regard to the IETF multi6 wg and the discussions about locator/identifier separation in general?
i'm also on record as saying that the easiest time to have fixed this was before the current IPng approach was annointed; now we're playing catchup. even you in your multi6 role ought to be wishing that more had been done before "IPv6" was cast in stone.
I'm not sure what part of IPv6 you would like to have seen different. Sure, there were some mistakes such as the whole ip6.int / ip6.arpa debacle, the site local thing that got this discussion started and last but not least the DNS resolver discovery issue, but what exactly should have been done differently in the area of routing?
However, if the RIRs decide to open up PI in IPv6, people will take the quick fix and there won't be any push to get the (admittedly) more complex but more scalable solutions to these problems off the ground.
somehow i don't think that's going to sway wal-mart's thinking at all, but i do look forward to a lively debate next time this comes up on PPML.
It's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided regionally.
the codification of the current approach as "IPng" in spite of objections raised at that time amounted to a recommendation of "let them eat NAT."
I'd rather eat cake than NAT. :-)
participants (2)
-
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Paul Vixie