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

[Marshall Eubanks]

Hello;

On Jan 23, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Lea Roberts wrote:

> (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
>

My feeling is that the lack consensus was caused primarily  by those  
who thought that this was not enough.
I could be wrong...

Marshall

>> - 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
>>
>>
>