Eliot, > Eliot Lear wrote: > I guess my concern is that ISPs end up routing the address > space in Bob's proposal and that we'll have another PI problem. > So while there's nothing wrong with Bob's proposal in theory > (indeed I prefer it vastly to the other SL approaches), if > customers believe they have stable addresses we could end up > right back where we were in the early '90s. I don't see this > happening for DSL customers but it could happenfor medium to > large size businesses who have the power of the purse.
I raised this very issue a long time ago, but that is not the worst problem we have. Finish the reasoning down that same path: - Sites will get unaggregatable portable /48s. - Their wallet will get them routed. - Everyone is happy, no renumbering issues, multihoming is possible. So, everyone will spend 5 bucks registering their /48, some (the ones that currently have an AS or will request one) will actually announce it, and we're all fat and happy. Until the GRT reaches 10k (and probably until it reaches 50k by the time that happens given better hardware) it won't be a concern. What happens next is more interesting. Re-using some wording I have read yesterday, this will become a self-regulating system, meaning that only those who can afford it will be able to announce their /48 after some time. The question is: in 5 or 10 years, what are these people that are running production networks configured with addresses that they own going to do when they can't announce their prefix anymore? Bingo, welcome to NATv6. Replacing site-locals with NATv6. Think about it. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
