Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [vixie] > > ... and why are we wasting our keystrokes discussing this if there's a > > preclusive topic being discussed somewhere entirely else? > > I don't think it's preclusive. If that discussion does lead to an > architectural id/locator split, it will not override what we're discussing > here, IMHO. We'll still have IP addresses and they will still need to be > unambiguous. Also, that is a discussion that is finally happening after ten > years of needing to happen, so it's hardly surprising that it hasn't > converged rapidly.
ok. > >> I have a strong feeling there is no consensus forming... > > [vixie] > > i disagree, i've been immersed in this for a month now, and my draft edits > > as proposed last night represent my understanding of a potential > > consensus, which unlike you i can feel forming. > > I personally am not part of it then. I don't want to see any structured > allocation scheme; a robotic guarantee of uniqueness is all I want to see. i've been on the outside of ietf consensus more often than inside, so you've got my sympathy if that matters. also note, the fact that you don't agree does not mean consensus isn't forming. as to your specific concern, i'm interested in knowing more about why you want the robotic guaranty of uniqueness to be the only feature. others here have made compelling cases for a larger feature set for ULA-C, and yet you are unmoved. your words... > I don't want to facilitate making these things look like a binary hierarchy, > because that will cause people to believe for the next 50 years that they > aggregate and are routeable. I also don't want to accidentally create a > business in selling large integers, which would be the effect of structured > registration as opposed to robotic random numbers. ...involve a lot of unsupported predictions, and sound somewhat emotional. i don't think that we should deny others the features they're asking for on the basis of what you don't want, especially since the things you say you don't want aren't obviously inevitable, or obviously bad, to anybody else we've heard from. if you can make a compelling case for why these results are inevitable AND why they would be bad, then you could win the elusive "consensus" over to your side. otherwise i think you're going to be on the outside of this one. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
