[ppml] wither 2005-1 (was: Policy without consensus?)

[Lea Roberts]

(still trying to get 2005-1 back in the title... :-)

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Daniel Golding wrote:

>
> We may have to change routing paradigms at some point. When we approach that
> scaling limit, it can be considered and examined. We are busy worrying about
> being able to route the entire IPv6 space. The funny thing is, unless there
> is a reasonable allocation policy, IPv6 will end up on the dust heap of
> history.
>
> Some folks assume that enterprises are willing to swallow a lack of PI space
> and multihoming. Wrong - they are not and will not now or in the future.
> They buy carrier services - and they will not buy IPv6 services without PI
> space and true multihoming.

> If we can't allocate IPv6 space to enterprises, then its time to scrap IPv6
> and start again. There is really no middle case in the real world.

I think this was the one clear lesson from Orlando and why I felt that the
first step for 2005-1 would be to address large organizations.  maybe
there's not even consensus there, but I had hoped...	sorry,	    /Lea

> - Daniel Golding
>
> On 1/23/06 9:24 PM, "Marshall Eubanks" <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
>
> > I would care more, at present at least, that the IPv6 routing table
> > actually get USED. At present, it is, what, 1% of the total ?
> >
> > One thing we learned in multicast is not to worry about problems caused
> > by success until you actually have something like success.
> >
> > Regards
> > Marshall
> >
> >
> > On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Lea Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> so do you gentlemen believe that we should allow unlimited
> >> allocation of
> >> IPv6 PI space to whomever wants to multihome and just consider the
> >> possible routing table scaling problems to be something that will be
> >> dealt with later?  and you also don't worry about carrying over the
> >> "IPv4
> >> early adopter bonus" into the brave new IPv6 world?  assuming of
> >> course
> >> that the policy might have to be more restrictive later?
> >>
> >> just curious,    /Lea
> >>
> >> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> >>
> >>>       On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> >>>>> Well, the last PP 2005-1 was completely unworkable. I
> >>>>> supported it because
> >>>>> it was better than nothing - but only barely. (Many) People
> >>>>> who voted for it
> >>>>> were holding their noses and voting yes in the hope of
> >>>>> improving it later.
> >>>
> >>> Yup, that's certainly true of me, and of everyone else I know who
> >>> voted
> >>> for it.  It wasn't acceptable as voted, but there was nothing else
> >>> on the
> >>> table, and nothing else we could vote for.  Yes, that's a really
> >>> major
> >>> problem.
> >>>
> >>>> That puts us in a difficult position.  The process says we can
> >>>> only ratify a policy is there is evidence of consensus.  The
> >>>> only exception would be in case of an emergency, and I think
> >>>> we're a couple of years from an emergency.
> >>>
> >>> I think we're a couple of years into an emergency.
> >>>
> >>>                                 -Bill
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
>