[ppml] getting converts to V6

[David Conrad]

On May 16, 2007, at 3:34 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> So, why isn't your complaint that no one has built a good,  
>> reasonable,
>> easy method or tool for renumbering
> been there, done that, got the t-shirt.  (A6 and DNAME.)

A t-shirt would likely have worked better in supporting renumbering  
than A6 and DNAME...

(I think that dead horse isn't even organic residue anymore)

>> or developed an assignment scheme or way of routing that would allow
>> you to not have to renumber or renumber entirely?
>
> in the IPng wars, many folks asserted that without a solution to the
> routing problem, adding more address bits would both fail to solve
> existing problems and also make existing problems worse and also cause
> new problems.  as you can see, those folks lost the war.  ("too  
> little,
> too soon." --tli)

Sorry, what problem?  I've been told "just build bigger routers" so  
many times now, maybe a million lemmings might not be wrong.

>> There's more than one way to handle a problem.  Why must PI always  
>> be the
>> answer?  (because the other is harder? takes more time? more  
>> collaboration?
> because it's the knob we have, on the mechanism we have, rather  
> than the knob
> we wish we had on the mechanism we don't have.

Given the state of affairs, namely:

- all RIRs are liberalizing PI allocation policies.
- many believe there is no problem in routing that can't be solved by  
throwing bigger/faster (although they admit, not necessarily cheaper)  
boxes at it.
- the IETF appears to have gone into navel gazing wait state.

It is difficult for me to envision a future where there will be any  
significant change to IPv6 architecture that might permit realistic  
site-wide renumbering.  But we have time yet...

Rgds,
-drc