[ppml] back to the IPv6 Policy questions
narten at us.ibm.com
Fri Jan 10 11:30:19 EST 2003
David Kessens <david at iprg.nokia.com> writes:
> This is a policy group and our goal for a policy should be to get ip
> as widely deployed as possible with minimal cost and without breaking
> the very technology that one wants to deploy.
Excuse me? Policy discussions are supposed to ignore any other
constraints (like the technical feasibility of something)?
I too would love to give everyone permanent, portable addresses. But I
also know we currently do not have technology that can do this. So I
don't support something that I'd like, precisely because I have real
worries that it will cause big problems down the road.
> You give two of the important reasons why this is not an easy problem
> to solve. However, claiming that the problem doesn't exist because you
> and me don't have a solution for it right now doesn't make the problem
> go away.
AFAIK, I have never claimed there isn't a problem here. The issue is
what is a reasonable solution. Just saying that we should do something
anyway, and hope that something happens that solves the technical
concerns that are sure to come later, doesn't strike me as good
More information about the ARIN-PPML