[ppml] 2005-1 status
owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 2 17:52:19 EST 2006
>> rather than trying to craft discriminating address policy that
>> preserves the status quo.
> rather than retry address policy that failed in the past, created
> a bad swamp, and forced an extremely difficult change on everyone
> with great pain, noise, and flamage from which some have still not
> completely recovered.
I have learned from history, Randy. What I have learned is that
we applied the wrong solution to the problem. Rather than solve
the problem of "How do we build a global routing table to accomodate
the PI needs of internet users" we solved the problem of "how do
we change addressing policy to bandaid the current situation."
There was much pain and flamage because the solution was only
slightly better than the original problem. Further, many of us
who accepted the solution did so expecting that IPv6 would have
a more complete and workable solution (and that it was supposed
to be coming soon).
I have learned from history that continuing to accept this will
only perpetuate the "let's treat as many users as possible as
second class citizens and make it painful for them to switch
providers." status quo.
CIDR was necessary at the time because there was no way to build
a new routing paradigm fast enough to resolve the issue before
it caused a serious meltdown. For IPv6, this is not the case.
What you call a bad swamp, I call a useful address allocation
paradigm which, unfortunately, the current routing architecture
has a problem scaling with. One solution is to reduce the
utility of addresses as has been done. Another is to change
the routing paradigm in such a way as to facilitate such an
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML