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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Mar 23 17:06:06 EST 2006


> 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.
> 
On this, we completely agree.

> 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.
> 
On this, I'm not so sure.  I think the changes don't need to be all that
radical, and, I don't think we need to split LOC/ID except in the
interdomain context.  I don't think prefix-based routing within an
autonomous system is all that unwieldy.

> We can pay now, or we can pay more later.  You seem to be voting 'more
> later'.
> 
On that, we agree.  Personally, I vote now.


Owen


-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060323/66798f2b/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list