[ppml] IP-v6 Needs (RE: a modified proposal 2005-8)

[Tony Li]

Terry, 

> And as I said also in some of the previous posts, a large corporation
> will simply not accept "provider furnished addressing" for business
> reasons (and possibly legal reasons).  Likewise I do not see 
> government
> being able to sign "perpetual contracts" with any vendor in order
> maintain their IP addressing.
> 
> PS: Nor I do ever want to consider the risks that would be inherent in
> re-addressing aircraft because the manufacturer, government 
> air traffic
> control service, or airline changed ISP's.


This is a fine perspective if you accept the original CIDR address
allocation scheme as gospel.

However, I submit that it's nothing more than a sacred cow.  With a new
architecture that provides true identifier/locator separation and
includes an architecturally (and practically) efficient and smooth
mechanism for locator change, there is no difficulty in being
multi-homed or mobile.

The fact of the matter is that this is not possible in the IPv6
architecture today, and unless we make some very drastic changes in an
awful hurry, it never will be.  At the same time, we know that long term
widespread use of PI addressing will lead to the eventual overload of
the routing subsystem and the ensuing operational insanity.

We can pay now, or we can pay more later.  You seem to be voting 'more
later'.

Regards,
Tony