[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider-independent IPv6 Assignments for End Sites - Last Call

[Robert E.Seastrom]

Vince Fuller <vaf at cisco.com> writes:

> Implementing this policy in the hopes that it will spur adoption of ipv6
> smacks of the "tail wagging the dog", of doing *something* rather than the
> *right* thing so that "progress" can be demonstrated. Such an illusion of
> progress will only alleviate pressure to fix the real flaws in ipv6 (i.e.
> co-mingling of the endpoint identifier and routing locator in a single
> "address" field) that render it incompatible with the goal of a scalable
> routing system.

Quite the opposite, actually.  Ten years of feckless work on the
routing problem by the IETF has yielded zilch.  Perhaps the specter of
routing table growth caused by actual adaptation of v6 will break the
logjam.  Then again, maybe it will take a crisis like it did last time
(CIDR) but the risk (or certainty if we're successful) of a crisis in
the future is not an excuse for not moving forward.  Thomas Paine said
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way".

By the way, speaking of "illusion of progress", every time I see a
presentation on a paper solution with no reference implementation
(shim6 anyone?), I have OSI-era flashbacks.  It's frankly
embarrassing.

How about a REAL solution from the IETF with a concentration on the
"working code" part of "rough consensus and working code" so that we
can get on with *repealing* 2005-1 after it's no longer necessary?

                                        ---Rob