Bob Hinden wrote:
[no hats on]
Then, we have a 'requirement' document that pretend to explain why we need
'local' addresses. If you read it carefully, and as acknowledged by one of its main
author in Vienna, almost all of those requirements (if not all) would be fulfilled
by provider independent addresses. Actually, there is nothing in it that
explain why we need 'local range' addresses. The essence of those
requirements is in the need for stable addresses that are
independent from ISPs.
If this means non-globally routable provider independent addresses (e.g., <draft-hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt> ), then I am in agreement that a solution doesn't have to be limited in scope (or range) like site-local addresses are.
If this means globally routable provider independent addresses. Then it is, of course, correct that this would solve many of the problems too. Unfortunately, there is a big problem why this isn't a practical choice we can make now. We don't have, IMHO, any idea how to make globally routable provider independent addresses work at scale in the Internet. There are a number of problem area.
What I mean is provider independant, registry allocated, public address space.
The fact that they are or not routable is an orthogonal issue
to be worked by contract between ISPs and their customers.
There is no way that the IETF or the registry can play a role there,
this is pure economy.
We don't know how to route them at the scale of the current Internet.
And we do not have to. If I want a block for my house and do not plan
to use it for something else, I will get such a block and not ask my ISP
to route it.
If I want to set-up a VPN between two networks, I will go to my ISP
and ask for limited routing.
If I start a new company and am successful, I may want to
get back to my ISP and ask: "how much to globally route my own personal /48?"
This is somehow a self-regulating problem. If only a few players want their pesonal /48 announced, this is no big deal and the cost will be low. If more people wants this, the cost will increase, and it will then become a trade-off, the value of having your personal prefix announced in the DFZ versus the size of your bill at the end of the month.
We don't have any structure in place to allocate and register these types of addresses. The registries might be able to do it, but as they are currently structured they are mostly focused on ISPs, not individual sites. This would require some major changes in their structure and perhaps funding models. Right now every site would have to be an LIR.
From private discussions, I'm not sure this is that impossible to achieve. I'll let them comment.
Assuming routing technology was available and all of the routers were modified to support the new routing technology, then there would have to be some incentive for the ISP to want to carry these type of routes.
see above.
They are great for the customers, but it makes it easy for their customers to switch ISPs. We have seen how well the phone providers have embraced provider independent phone numbers. They only "agreed" to support them after governmental action. I suspect ISP might not be widely enthusiastic to deploy them.
Give that the regulators decided that phone carriers had to support telephone number
portability, how long do you think it will take before they decide that ISP have to
do the same?
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
