Margaret Wasserman wrote: > ... > What we _really_ want is to achieve all three of the > following things simultaneously: > > - All addresses are globally routable (note that this doesn't > preclude filtering some addresses or > address/port combos). > - Addresses are provider-independent (stable across > ISP changes > or ISP renumbering, available when not > connected, etc.). > - Core Internet routing tables stay a manageable size. > > But, we have not (yet?) come up with a model for > provider-independent, globally-routable addressing that does > not result in routing table bloat.
So even though the routing research group has not come up with a solution that simultaneously addresses all three of these in the last 10 years of focused work, the IPv6 WG will promise to come up with a solution quickly if we just deprecate the only viable approach we know of first. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the herd mentality is so willing to buy the promise of a better way rather than face reality, but it still does. > > So, network administrators will be forced to choose between > global-routability and provider-independence for their > internal addressing. And, as we've learned in IPv4, there > are a fairly large number of people who will choose > provider-independence over global-routability. They are forced to choose in IPv4 because it is too difficult to assign multiple addresses to an interface. That issue goes away with IPv6, so the 'forced to choose' concept is coming from those who don't want to deal with the issues raised. > > So, we do need to provide some solution for > provider-independent, local addressing. But there is no > reason why these addresses need to be ambiguous. And, if > they are globally unique, they don't need to be constrained > by the limitations of current site-local addressing that are > required because of thier ambiguity (can't be nested, can't > overlap, etc.). > > Deprecating site-local addressing does not immediately remove > it from those implementations that include it, and it > certainly doesn't remove it from current network > configurations, but it does send a strong message to people > that the current, ambiguous site-local addresses are not a > solution that should be invested in further. And, it opens > the door to finding new, viable ways to address the demand > for provider-independent addresses. The door is always open to finding better ways to do things. Instead of promising greener grass, prove it first. In 10 years, the IRTF RRG has not figured out a PI space they are willing to live with. It is incumbent on the IPv6 WG to deliver a viable PI replacement BEFORE removing the only PI addressing model we have. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
