Margaret, >> Michel Py wrote: >> This is not the way "PI" is being understood in the realm that >> deals with them, the RIRs. "PI" does not only mean portability, >> it also means the routing mechanism that is (and always has been) >> in use, which is to announce the prefix in the global routing >> table, making it grow.
> Margaret Wasserman wrote: > No matter what term I use, you seem to attach other attributes to > it... > What words would you like me to use for portable, globally- > routable addresses that are assigned to an entity (home, > enterprise, etc.) and that can be used by that entity regardless > of the ISP from which they purchase their service, cannot be > changed by the ISP, and don't need to change if the entity changes > ISPs. > I don't mean to imply, however, that these addresses would be > randomly assigned, or that there wouldn't be some way (other than > provider-based aggregation) to aggregate them. In fact, we would > NEED to find a way to aggregate these addresses to make them > useful/scalable. Possibilities for how to allocate aggregable > provider-independent addresses could include (among other options) > the geographical addresses that Tony Hain has proposed. > What term should I use for that? If it is any different than the PI we have today, I don't know, because it does not exist. As I said before, xxPI, or "something that provides the perks of PI and is scalable". I guess there is no universal name until you actually see the solution. Tony's drafts has to components: a) An address allocation scheme, based on GPS coordinates. b) An aggregation mechanism, based on a form of exchange aggregation. For the a) part we have a somehow simililar (in the sense that it's based on geography also) allocation scheme, we called it GAPI for Geographically Aggregatable Provider Independent. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt I don't like too much the association with the negative connotations of "PI" (they're about as bad as "NAT"), but that's how we named it. For the b) part we have different schemes, which is why we have chosen to separate the naming of the drafts. That being said, there is nothing that says that the aggregation mechanism should be based on geography, although we all seem to go in the same direction. There is nothing that says that the scalability should come from aggregation either. Technically, I still consider Tony's draft a PI draft, same as our GFN: - The basic mechanism to inject the prefix in the routing system is still there. - Aggregation is optional as there is no coupling between the allocation scheme and the aggregation mechanism. As I have said before, geographically aggregatable schemes are superior to PI in any situation, but they are far from being enough alone. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
