[ppml] 2005-1 status
--On February 2, 2006 9:29:07 AM -0500 Scott Leibrand
<sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/06 at 8:31am -0600, Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> 2005-1 expressed a means to accommodate the needs of current users of
>> the Internet and doesn't break with the status quo
> Yes it does. The most recently presented draft of 2005-1 allows any home
> user who can get a /48 from two ISPs to qualify for PI space.
Current IPv4 status quo allows any home user who can justify a /22
(show that he is multhomed and has ~500 or so host addresses in use)
to get PI space. I do not see these two as being significantly
>> or break the routing infrastructure.
> That remains to be seen.
While I agree that we should not intentionally break the routing
I would argue that if there is a need for PI space, the question should be
"Can we prove this will break the routing infrastructure?" instead of
"If it might break the routing infrastructure, let's avoid it."
If we cannot prove that it will break the routing infrastructure, then,
what basis do we have to create a group of "second class citizens" who
cannot have PI space to meet their needs, just to avoid the speculative
possibility that it might eventually present a scaling problem?
>> I does bring into question whether 'in the longer term', the status quo
>> will accommodate those future needs. As you suggest above, there may be
>> more than one way to remedy those implications and does not attempt to
>> specify any particular remedy.
> So why are we specifying PI-for-everyone as the remedy? Why not just give
> IPv6 PI space to those who qualify for IPv4 PI space (for now), and wait
> until later to give out PI-for-everyone only if necessary?
PI for everyone who cares enough to pay for it is the need. Failing to
address that need is discriminatory and arbitrary unless you can prove
a clear case for damage to the network. At 10 times the current IPv6
adoption rate, there is at least 5 years for IETF to develop a new
routing paradigm and begin deployment and another 5 to get it deployed.
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available