[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 06:51:07AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2005, at 2:57 AM, Michael.Dillon at radianz.com wrote:
> >>It can also be
> >>convincingly argued that (to paraphrase Dave Clark) the IPv6 truck is
> >>driving into the same swamp as IPv4, yelling "me too, me too".
> >
> >If we don't have a commonly agreed definition of "swamp", then
> >nobody is going to worry about driving into it.
> >
> >So, what is your definition of "IPv4 swamp" and what was
> >wrong with this "swamp".
> 
> One definition of "the swamp" from draft-ietf-grow-rfc1519bis-00.txt is:
> 
>   "Note that, as defined, this plan neither requires nor assumes the re-
>    assignment of those parts of the legacy "class C" space that are not
>    amenable to aggregation (sometimes called "the swamp")."
> 
> Since we're talking about IPv6, I'd think it would make sense to 
> generalize this definition to be the unaggregatable prefixes in either 
> global address pool.
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc

	imho, there are -very few- prefixes that are NOT aggregatable.
	imho, it is useful, and HARD, to discriminate btwn aggregations
	that are approved by the prefix originator and proxy aggregations
	that are done w/o the knowledge/consent of the prefix originator.

--bill