"Alan E. Beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Yes, I think you are probably right in speculating that any technically
|sound mechanism which preserves the virtues of provider independence,
|portability, and stability in configuration of end-user-network devices
|will satisfy the functional requirements of the end-user community. It
|seems to be up to us to architect the mechanism(s).
Any thoughts on how we might jump start some activity in this area? Over
the years I've tried the bottom-up approach by suggesting some possible
mechanisms, and I've tried the top-down approach by suggesting that we try
to reach consensus on how much overhead we are willing to accept in return
for the solution. The former generally provokes protests that the solution
is too complicated to sketch and the latter usually results in silence. How
can we get some serious discussion going?
If we do stick our heads in the sand (again) and pretend that provider-based
hierarchical address allocation is temporary (again) then history will likely
repeat itself. There will be a little v6 swamp to accommodate some edu sites
and those enterprises that are big enough to demand real multi-homed support,
but the rest of us will be stuck with the same kind of unstable/non-portable
addresses we have today in the post-aggregation v4 world. IMHO, any solution
that attacks the problem by slightly shifting the demarkation point so that
"enough" large enterprises can have PI space to make v6 appear commercially
viable is a sham. We cannot afford to defer support of the small- and home-
office environment forever.
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
