I must have misunderstood something really seriously here. What is the difference between how we allocate PI space today (well, there is no swamp space in IPv6 of course) compared to the GUPI model? If I have got all this right we are suggesting to take a prefix and use it as PI space, right? Now this is just a matter of the number of holes and the size of them? As an network operator there would be no difference at all.Steven Blake wrote: I'm having a hard time understanding why any of the thousands of institutions with IPv4 PI address prefixes would ever migrate to IPv6 if they had to give up PI addressing.They would not, but the way of providing them PI addresses is not to punch holes in PA space that would lead us directly in the same swamp than IPv4.
Some here have claimed that GUPI would help to track down incorrect announcements but we can today already deal with RFC1918 space that is leaked.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
