[ppml] 2005-1 alternatives
gih at apnic.net
Tue Apr 19 19:03:28 EDT 2005
At 06:33 AM 20/04/2005, Steve Feldman wrote:
>So there wasn't overwhelming support this morning for 2005-01.
>Why did people vote against it? Because the proposed criteria
>for allowing PI assignment were bad, because PI space is a bad
>idea in general, or something else?
>If it's the criteria, what would work better?
>Maybe possession of PI v4 space? That _and_ an AS number?
I suspect that the underlying issue is that we've managed to surprise
ourselves a couple of times when the routing table has made a few leaps
upward at a rate that looked like it would overwhelm the capability of the
deployed routing infrastructure, and the reaction has been one of viewing
impacts on routing in a conservative manner by those who got worried at the
time. In some ways scaling routing is not exactly a well understood topic,
and there is some doubting of the wisdom of the optimistic view of "well
we'll solve that routing explosion problem when it 's clearly obvious that
its about to go bang!". If we understood routing scaling and the dynamics
of routing at both a technology and at a business level maybe we'd have a
more coherent common view of what is good housekeeping of routing and the
associated topic of what is good housekeeping of address blocks that make
their way into routing. As it stands what I saw today is best expressed as
an unclear picture of where the best long term interests lie here for the
But then the duality and implicit tensions of routing scaleability and
addresses utility goes back a very long way - the Routing and Addressing
Group of the IETF in the early 1990s was an early incarnation of the same
set of tensions relating to what makes routing scale vs what makes
addresses truly useful and convenient to use.
More information about the ARIN-PPML