[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

[Paul_Vixie at isc.org]

> As I mentioned earlier, one of the barriers to getting management buy in on
> IPv6 is the fact that the standards keep changing, and this is a good
> example.  To use an analogy, the financial boys won't sign off on starting
> the building until they get a final floor plan.  Keep rewriting the spec to
> try and get it 'perfect' instead of 'good enough' and it'll still be in
> redesign as the last IPv4 address goes out the door?

ipv4 has been in continuous redesign since 1968 or so.  what your management
team needs to look for isn't stasis but rather flag days.  ipv6 is well past
its final flag day (when all existing implementations are made "wrong" and
new silicon has to be etched everywhere at once.)

> What problem are we trying to solve here?  Is it a valid concern, or are we
> fighting the last war and blithly ignoring what will be the real problems
> with IPv6.  (Hint, you don't know what it is either.  If it's the same
> problem, it's solved.  If it's something you can think of, it's probably
> being solved.  It's novel.)

the real problems with IPv6 are those it shares with IPv4, so let's just call
it "the real problems with IP".  they've been argued forever and go by many
names.  from ppml's point of view, the right name of the biggest problem is
"lack of EID/RID split".  since we're using one address for both identity and
location, it actually matters whether that address is universal or private,
PI or PA, etc.  as tli pointed out fairly early on, a solution to this
problem would have added a lot more to the IP address system lifetime than
adding more bits has added or will add.  so, the problem isn't novel, but
general recognition of the problem would certainly be novel.