[ppml] 2005-1 status

[Bill Darte]

> Bill and Owen,
> 
> What if the IETF comes up with a routing architecture / 
> protocol design that allows for effective multihoming with PA 
> space?  That seems more likely to me (in the near term) than 
> a complete replacement of BGP4.
> 
> IMO policy should recognize the status quo for what it is: 
> the way things are done.  If the status quo needs to change, 
> fine.  That's why we're debating 2005-1.  But I think it's 
> dangerous to make policy with the goal of breaking things so 
> that someone else will be forced to fix them later.

I think this is a mis-characterization... 2005-1 expressed a means to
accommodate the needs of current users of the Internet and doesn't break
with the status quo or break the routing infrastructure.  I does bring into
question whether 'in the longer term', the status quo will accommodate those
future needs.  As you suggest above, there may be more than one way to
remedy those implications and does not attempt to specify any particular
remedy.

I would never advocate or support policy proposals whose goal is to "break
things"....  I have been around long enough (some may say too long) to have
heard many 'sky falling' objections to address policy proposals that
'loosens' things to the point of 'breaking' the routing system.  I've seen
no evidence to date that such fear was warranted...even in the slightest.

> IMO we 
> should make policy that meets the current needs of our 
> constituents, and strive to meet their future needs by 
> working through the IETF process to fix the routing 
> architecture, and then modifying policy in the future when 
> future interests have emerged and we have a clearer idea of 
> the tradeoffs.
> 
> -Scott
> 
> On 02/02/06 at 8:15am -0600, Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Owen,
> >
> > My personal belief is that you frame the question(s) 
> appropriately in 
> > this post. If the architecture of the Internet no longer serves the 
> > emerging interests of the constituents, then the 
> architecture should 
> > change, rather than trying to craft discriminating address 
> policy that 
> > preserves the status quo.
> >
> > On a slightly different topic, with the PI for endsites 
> policy, there 
> > is no stipulation about the v4 blocks that exist in the v6 
> recipients 
> > 'possession'.  You are assuming that that legacy assignment would 
> > endure in perpetuity? You have no expectation that the v6 
> block would 
> > require the legacy v4 blocks, whether PA or PI to be returned?
> >
> > I'm not suggesting this be the case...just want this issue to be 
> > addressed.
> >
> > bd
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf 
> > > Of Owen DeLong
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:35 AM
> > > To: Scott Leibrand; George Kuzmowycz
> > > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PPML mailing list
> > > PPML at arin.net
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >
>