[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Owen DeLong]

--On February 1, 2006 10:15:22 AM +0000 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

>> On one side, if we do allow PI addressing to get out of hand, current
>> routing technology cannot scale to support it, and, the internet will
>> be incapable of maintaining a routing infrastructure.
>
> That's an exaggeration. You are assuming that ARIN will
> give out PI addresses randomly. Since policy is not yet
> cast in stone, this is not yet a valid assumption. People
> have suggested that such PI allocations be made out of
> a DESIGNATED BLOCK so that tools can distinguish PI addresses
> from normal IPv6 address blocks.
>
No, Michael, I'm beginning with the premise that it is what
will happen if we ALLOW IT TO GET OUT OF HAND.  I am not
suggesting that allowing it to get out of hand is what
will happen.  I am not assuming that will happen.  I am
simply stating that is the consequence if it DOES get
out of hand.  I believe it is accurate as such.

[snip]I remain unconvinced about your geo-centric addressing
ideas.

>> A non-functional
>> internet or one in which some significant portion of addresses are
>> unreachable or unstable does not serve the end user or provider
>> constituencies.  This is the extreme of one side of this issue, and,
>> the source of most of the anti-PI statements.
>
> ARIN has never guaranteed the routability of address prefixes.
>
While that is true, and, remember, I'm supporting 2005-1... Heck, I'm
the original AUTHOR... It's not like I'm opposed to granting PI space,
and, I think I'm one of the more liberally focused people on the
subject.  The fact remains that if PI allocations cause the routing
infrastructure to melt, it's bad for everyone.  That's all I was
saying.  I did not comment on the expectation or likelihood of such
an event, with or without this policy.

For the record, I do not believe that passing Kevin's last revision
to 2005-1 will lead to any of the scenarios described by the anti-PI
contingent.  I do not believe that there will be a run on ASNs,
IPv6 addresses or anything else as a result.  I do not believe that
it will melt the routing infrastructure for several years to come
at the very least.  Frankly, if the IETF thinks I am wrong about
this, then, they should start designing a new routing infrastructure
that can support the requirements of the real world.

Unfortunately, as much as you think end-users are underrepresented
in ARIN (and I agree that they are, BTW), they are essentially
unrepresented in IETF.  I think last I looked, IETF seems to be
about 90% vendors, 9% ISPs and about 1% everyone else (policy
wonks, lobbyists, press, end-users, lookey-loos, etc.).
I suspect that if end users were better represented in IETF,
that a routing system that could accomodate PI space would not
have been tossed aside as "too hard" so easily.

The IETF used to do a much better job of understanding the true
needs of end users.  What has changed is the nature of the end users.
It used to be that the end users were, by and large, also the network
operators and protocol engineers.  Now that John Q. Public is the
norm and not the exception on the internet, I'm not sure that the
IETF model of development scales so well.

Owen


-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060201/c6fba64b/attachment.sig>