[ppml] alternative to 2005-1

[Owen DeLong]

> One of the arguments back in IPng days was that one of the benefits
> of IPng would be we'd be able to start with a clean slate in terms of
> routing and all the historical mistakes made with IPv4 wouldn't be
> repeated.
>
And yet we turned right around and repeated the mistake of integrating
the route locator and end system identifier into the same number and
propogated the mistake of requiring every prefix to be visible in nearly
every routing table in the DFZ(s).

The fact that some of us are interested in crafting address policy that
is fair to the end users instead of optimized to work-around these mistakes
better than we did in IPv4 could be viewed as an effort at improvement.

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/20060209/d4bcf188/attachment.sig>