[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
>    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.


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