[ppml] What's in a name? An address allocation would smell as sweet

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 24 04:22:47 EST 2006



--On March 23, 2006 4:30:20 PM -0600 "Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO" 
<jdhoule at att.com> wrote:

> Mike et al:
>    Thanks for the clarification.
>    So I guess the counter-proposal to PI addresses, is to consider
> organizations inside larger organizations that, if separate, would
> qualify as an LIR.  These folks maybe should be considered LIRs from
> ARIN.
>
>    Two other points you bring up.
>    With IPv6 still not quite ready-for-primetime it may be difficult for
> us to see this but... The IPv6 vision is to turn concerns like:
> "But if they change ISPs then they must renumber each site",
> Into benefits like:
> "If they connect to multiple ISPs they have additional address
> allocations to use".
>

Having to use multiple addresses on a machine to source
connections through a variety of ISPs is _NOT_ a good thing.  It might
be what we have to do if we follow some of the current proposals, but,
that doesn't make it the best thing from a user or site administrator
perspective.  There are serious limitations and complications
involved in such an implementation, and, the proposals to make
them workable are still vaporware.

Saying it has a strong aroma does not mean it doesn't stink, no
matter how much the fertilizer salesman would like to convnice us
that is the case.

>    One last thought... These PI proposals (one more than the other) are
> not only proposals for PI addresses, but also proposals to perpetuate
> the fragmented address space, as suffered today by IPv4, where each
> "site" shows up as an entry in the global routing table.
>
Yes.  To some extent that's true.  However, the alternative of saying
"We didn't fix the major problems with V4 in V6, so, we want to treat
a larger subset of the population as second class users in order to
accommodate this issue" doesn't fly either.


>    Are we in North America that ready to abandon the IPv6 visions of
> aggregated routing tables and multi-addressing as a multi-homing
> mechanism?
>
Since that vision is still nothing but vaporware, and, people are trying
to get us to deploy v6, yes.

Owen

-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- 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/20060324/074062e3/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list