On Tuesday, July 08, 1997 10:10 AM, Paul Ferguson[SMTP:pferguso at CISCO.COM] wrote:
@ At 09:09 AM 07/08/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
@ > Agreed. That is why we should be looking at adding more address space
@ >as a priority rather than imposing restrictions on allocations as a
@ >priority. I agree that if we can reclaim space that is not being used,
@ >than this avenue should of course be exploited. BUT FIRST and FORMOST
@ >providing new and additional address space should be the #1 priority.
@ >This however does not seem to be the case according to the tennor of
@ >the discussion on this list, nor form statments made by Board members
@ >of ARIN.
@ Deja vu. A discussion on this topic usually always results in
@ someone stating that more address space is needed.
@ I disagree that increasing the address space is the most
@ important gaol here. In fact, I'm not sure it even rates
@ in the top five, at least not in the near term.
The routing problem is much more serious...
@ I should remind you that the only avenue to expanding the IP address
@ space is a migration to IPv6. This only solves the "problem" of
@ address space scarcity in the IPv4 address space, and incidentally,
@ introduces a whole new set of problems.
IPv6 solved the wrong problem and introduces more problems
than it solves...
@ Again (and I have stated this on multiple occasions), increasing
@ the address space as a method to do an end-around the allocation
@ policies is a fatally flawed line of reason. If the allocation
@ policies are not in place with IPv6 address allocation to ensure
@ that some semblance of aggregation is preserved, then we have
@ created a more critical problem.
@ If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the
@ intricacies in the global routing system.
@ - paul
Given all that...we still have to move forward. There
are current generations and future generations of
people that are depending on engineers to design
a network that can help them communicate with
each other...I am confident that will happen...
These generations are also dependent on lawyers
and politicians to establish governance to allow
the networks to remain open, free and available to
the average person for a reasonable charge....I am
not confident that this will happen...partly because
the people making these decisions do not understand
the technology and are being mislead by those people
(and companies) that do understand the technology
but who want to shape things to their financial advantage...
...follow the money...it leads the wrong way...