[ppml] 2005-1 status

[George Kuzmowycz]

>>> <Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com> 02/01/2006 4:59:05 AM >>>
> It's
> not that we (the customers) don't trust you, it's that in today's
> regulatory/business environment we no longer are permitted to trust
you.
> If I don't have a solid plan for what to do quickly and painlessly
to
> switch ISP's, I lose my job or our customers or both. For better or
for
> worse, PI space and multi-homing are the answer du jour.

Local multihoming based on geo-topological IPv6 addresses is
also a workable solution to this issue. The main technical hurdle
is that it requires use of IPv6 instead of IPv4. And the main
policy hurdle is that it requires IANA and the RIRs to start
allocated addresses out of a global block that is set aside for
geo-topological addressing. Other than that, it can be implemented
using today's technology unchanged.
>>>

I freely admit I'm not up to speed on this (and I recognize from
subsequent discussion that it's not a consensus position). Can you point
me to a starting point for reading?

I also freely admit that I've got a ways to go in catching up with the
IPv6 discussions. Part of the problem is that it seems to this newcomer
like a bunch of people who have known each other forever and who staked
out their positions a decade ago, and have been talking past each other
ever since.

Out here in the real world, real multi-homing and customer-level
traffic engineering (or attempted traffic engineering) are genies that
aren't going to go back in the bottle. You can deconstruct my last
message all you want as to "needs" or "wants", but when the people who
sign the contracts and spend the money say they "want" something,
telling them that they don't "need" it doesn't sound like a good
strategy.