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

[David Williamson]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 04:24:40PM -0400, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
> I see we're in agreement about the process having failed; we disagree
> on what to do next.
>  [...]
> CIDR wouldn't have happened without people getting _worried_ about
> routing table growth.  As long as v6 is moribund, there's nothing to
> worry about.
>  [...]
> I agree that it's disappointing, but find it preferable to the
> alternative of not having a migration path away from v4 before we run
> out of address space.
>  [...]
> Also in case it's not obvious, I'm in favor of 2005-1.

Yeah, that about sums it up for me.  I'd prefer to not require PI space
in v6.  Given current reality, however, my organization will never go
for PA space due to the usual reasons.  If the protocol fixed the
problem of renumbering/multihoming/portability/whatever, we'd jump into
PA space in a heartbeat.  I'd really much prefer that, as I don't think
PI space is particularly workable for the long term.

Oh, and in case it isn't obvious, I'm very much in favor of 2005-1.  I
think PI space until such time as it isn't needed (if ever...) is far
preferable to nothing deployed and running out of v4 space.  Yes,
there's a ways to go before that event, but it's coming soon enough to
already look to me like a train wreck.

-David