[ppml] Fw: protocols that don't meet the need...

[Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com]

The attached message was just posted to the NANOG mailing list.
I agree with Per that it is unwise to make policies based
on stuff that is in-progress in the IETF and may, or may not,
come through the IETF process. This applies to shim6 or
anything else that is in an unimplemented Internet draft
such as Tony Hain's geo-addressing proposal. 

We have to make our policies based on what is here today.

> It's the lack of reality in operational policies that is the real source
> of frustration in ops communities. People are picking on shim6 because
> it is used as an argument to back the current policies at a time when it
> doesn't even have an early alpha-implementation to show for it. Policies
> built around shim6 may be ok in 5 or 10 years if or when it is mature
> with supporting technology to handle large networks, but not now. In the
> meantime we need a policy that can accomodate the need for multihoming
> of end-sites with *existing* technology. Without such a policy we will
> have anarchy with LIRs making their own policies (fragmentation) and
> people telling lies to qualify as a LIR to obtain independent blocks
> (unless there's a way to delay v6 deployment until there is technology
> available to back the current policy).
> 
> 
> //per
> -- 
>   Per Heldal
>   http://heldal.eml.cc/
>