[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process- revised
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Martin Hannigan <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 6:42 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Note the emphasis on subnetting so that you wouldn't consume an entire
>> class C for every LAN segment. That's where the heads were in the game
>> in 1995. That's what we cared about. Unless you were requesting a lot
>> of addresses, deeper questions of "need" were CURSORY.
> You realize that needs were different circa '95 and that the needs then are
> much different than the needs now hence where the "heads" were then? In Sep
> 94 there were about 84 web sites total (IIRC), hosting was done by the
> address routed to the machine typically and RIP was useful. At that time I
> was answering questions like "what is a proxy" "who is this warez guy!" and
> "why are people wasting our capacity going to netscape everytime they open
> their browser?". The needs of yesteryear were much different than the needs
> of today and needs have always been the driver IMHO.
I agree with everything you just said. Where does that leave us?
The whole IPv6 PA-everywhere idea that came out of the IETF has enough
glaring technical deficiencies that it won't fly. Is CIDR and the
needs-based justification we've employed for the last 12 to 14 years
the best answer there is? Or have we learned enough about routing and
addressing in the last decade to come up with a better answer for the
relatively clean slate afforded by IPv6?
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004