We have more than enough IPv4 addresses for China.
no way.
itojun
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any relief for the Internet before IPv4 space is exhausted.
I am so tired of this when IPv4 space runs out, civilization will fall
vibe. I'm almost ready to suggest that we just hand out all the remaining
IPv4 address space today, now, just to get it
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
any relief for the Internet before IPv4 space is exhausted.
I am so tired of this when IPv4 space runs out, civilization will fall
vibe. I'm almost ready to suggest that we just hand out all the remaining
IPv4 address space
On 20-sep-2007, at 21:10, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
First of all, litigation isn't the only way to get something
done, and second, do don't know that until you try.
If you try to revoke someone's /8 or /16, you can bet that they're
going to sue you.
So? The RIRs and ICANN have deep pockets.
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20-sep-2007, at 21:10, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
First of all, litigation isn't the only way to get something done, and
second, do don't know that until you try.
If you try to revoke someone's /8 or /16, you can bet that they're going
to
the underlying political constraints.
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:35 AM
To: IETF-Discussion
Subject: Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN
continues to kill it)
owners of those services will simply go
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
SCO had deep pockets too. IBM, Novell, etc. had much, much deeper
pockets. Do you really think ARIN or ICANN could take on titans such
as GE, IBM, ATT, Xerox, HP, Apple, Ford, Halliburton, Eli Lilly,
Prudential, and Merck? Even _one_ of them? ARIN would be squashed
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
So? The RIRs and ICANN have deep pockets.
SCO had deep pockets too. IBM, Novell, etc. had much, much deeper
pockets. Do you really think ARIN or ICANN could take on titans such
as GE, IBM, ATT, Xerox, HP, Apple, Ford, Halliburton, Eli Lilly,
Prudential, and Merck?
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Seems to me that what you are saying amounts to the statement that PI space
cannot exist by definition. If there is address space that is routable on an
Internet-wide basis it is by definition routable Internet space and no PI
space.
There can be such a
owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route
this, or I'll find someone else who will.
I'm actually not as convinced of this. Yes, they can get routing from
their ISP, and the ISP will be happy to sell it to them. Can they get
it from their ISP's upstream, and from that
On 19-sep-2007, at 21:06, Tony Hain wrote:
It is clear that people on this list have never really run a
network as they
appear to be completely missing the point, but there is no reason
to respond
to each individually...
[why ULA-C is not a problem]
I agree 100%
On 19-sep-2007, at 16:40, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[provider independent addresses]
However, it is the only solution available today that the
operational folks consider viable. The IETF promised something
different and has yet to deliver, so PI was passed and deployed.
If the IETF does
On 19-sep-2007, at 22:51, Thomas Narten wrote:
And owners of those services
will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else
who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will
fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love
your business.
And owners of those services
will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else
who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will
fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love
your business.
I used to work at a large ISP with
owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route
this, or I'll find someone else who will.
I'm actually not as convinced of this. Yes, they can get routing from
their ISP, and the ISP will be happy to sell it to them. Can they get
it from their ISP's upstream, and from
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Narten wrote:
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When
that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes
get advertised within its network and
Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When
that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes
get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not
rocket science to guess that networks will favor their own customers,
the
On 20-sep-2007, at 14:42, Thomas Narten wrote:
A key point here is that when it comes to sales and marketing, it's
problematic when your competitor says we offer X, if you yourself
don't. Given the commodity nature of ISP service, it doesn't take long
before everyone is offering similar terms,
Does Balkanization of the Internet mean anything to you?
Yes.
NAT, BGP route filtering, bogon lists, firewalls, Community
of Interest extranets such as SITA, Automotive Network Exchange,
RadianzNet. And let's not forget the IP VPN services that companies
like Verizon sell as a flagship product.
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to mention sites that are more than 30 hops away from each
other. I've seen traceroutes that go up to 27 hops so I imagine
that the hopcount diameter is once again becoming an issue as it
was prior to 1995.
That was in many
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19-sep-2007, at 16:40, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[provider independent addresses]
However, it is the only solution available today that the operational
folks consider viable. The IETF promised something different and has
yet to deliver, so
Ted Hardie wrote:
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20-sep-2007, at 18:33, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
ARIN's counsel has told ARIN that it is unclear if they have legal
standing to revoke legacy assignments.
First of all, litigation isn't the only way to get something done, and
second, do don't
the concern i heard wrt ULA-G (and therefore wrt ULA-C upon
with -G is based) is that the filtering recommendations in
RFC 4193 were as unlikely to work
as the filtering recommendations in RFC 1597 and RFC 1918.
Given the overwhelming success of RFC 1918 it only requires a very small
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Tony Hain wrote:
snip
If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if
you don't want them.
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
snip
someone on ARIN PPML accused ULA-C (and therefore ULA-G) of being an end run
around PA/PI by which they meant a way to get the benefits of PI without
qualifying for the costs imposed by PI on everyone else in the DFZ. i
realized in that moment, that
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's
an end run around the DFZ.
some day, the people who are then responsible for global address
policy and global internet operations,
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the
enterprise operational world. Unfortunately, that is rather common with
the ivory-tower vendor folks commenting in this thread.
Having spent the best part of a decade in the
what I read into it is... the future internet might not be
structured as it is today, we might get a internet on the
side which don't touch the DFZ at all. Mostly regionbased traffic...
WRONG! The future Internet will be structured the SAME as it is today,
mostly region-based traffic. The
Thus spake Michael Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have an application where I will have approximately 2000 hosts (many
of them virtualized) in a cabinet, and I will eventually have hundreds
of such cabinets spread around the world.
...
Site-local addresses could be used, but they are
Thus spake Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_understand_ why PI is necessary, however much they dislike and/or
fear
it.
Most (all?) of us understand and accept that multi-homing, vendor
independence, etc are very desirable *capability* goals.
Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:40:31AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk:
Thus spake Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_understand_ why PI is necessary, however much they dislike and/or
fear
it.
Most (all?) of us understand and accept that multi-homing,
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.. ULA-C/G leaks will not collide with each other. This means that,
unlike RFC1918 which is _impossible_ for ISPs to route for multiple
customers, ULA-C/G routes _can_ be routed publicly. Any prohibition
on doing so by the IETF or
Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
.. ULA-C/G leaks will not collide with each other. This means that,
unlike RFC1918 which is _impossible_ for ISPs to route for multiple
customers, ULA-C/G routes _can_ be routed publicly. Any prohibition
on
Ted Hardie wrote:
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't
want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that
argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you
Thomas Narten wrote:
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When
that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes
get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not
rocket science to
Jari Arkko wrote:
Lixia,
I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my
understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived
difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see,
does not exist.
Whether a unique prefix is/not globally
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is
Tony Hain wrote:
[..]
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you
On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
Jari Arkko wrote:
Lixia,
I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my
understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a
perceived
difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can
see,
does not
if you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then
you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce
keeping private space private.
Also doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. There is a set prefix of
ULAs now. Filtering it on is already
On 18-sep-2007, at 17:50, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I don't think ULA-C makes sense. We have a RIR system in place. These
RIRs are supposed to provide address space for people/organizations
who
can justify a need for that address space.
That's like selling train tickets at the airport. Except
On 18-sep-2007, at 18:10, Ted Hardie wrote:
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that
don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that
argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no
way to
filter out what would
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's
an end run around the DFZ.
some day, the people who are then responsible for global address
policy and global internet operations, will end the tyranny of the
core
From: Roger Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a system in which reachability is less ubiquitous? I.e. for a given
destination address X, there will be significant parts of the
internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X - and not
because of access controls which
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing PI to enterprises who move now is a nice bonus, not
not necessary in the long run.
That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the
enterprise operational world.
Or it perhaps shows how completely out
Thus spake Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises
are unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18-sep-2007, at 17:50, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I don't think ULA-C makes sense. We have a RIR system in
place. These RIRs are supposed to provide address space
for people/organizations who can justify a need for that
address space.
That's like
Thus spake Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jari Arkko wrote:
Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling may not
correspond to what is actually done with it.
If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out
if you don't want them.
If they're truly local prefixes,
Thus spake Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing PI to enterprises who move now is a nice bonus, not
not necessary in the long run.
That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the enterprise
operational world. Unfortunately, that is rather common with the
ivory-tower vendor
[elaborating]
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Providing PI to enterprises who move now is a nice bonus, not
not necessary in the long run.
That comment shows how completely out of touch you are with the
enterprise operational world. Unfortunately, that is
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:21PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Roger,
On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this,
which
i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
and inaccurately failed to remove
Lixia,
I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my
understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived
difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see,
does not exist.
Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:06:26PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Mark,
I get renumbered in IPv4 today.
I suspect there is probably a question of scale here.
I wouldn't be surprised that a small home network with a limited
number of subnets and systems could be automatically
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be STUPID. It was
stupid 15 years ago and it is still
At 12:08 AM +1000 9/16/07, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be STUPID. It
On 15-sep-2007, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be STUPID. It was
stupid 15 years ago and it is still stupid
At 5:08 PM +0200 9/15/07, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 15-sep-2007, at 16:51, Paul Hoffman wrote:
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be STUPID. It was
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Certainly. Every vendor who ties a license to an IP address has already had to
deal with customers who change IP addresses. I doubt that Bill's mentioning of
this practice was meant to say therefore we can never do anything that would
cause
On 15-sep-2007, at 18:42, Terry Gray wrote:
Example: Fred mentioned that it would be nice to just use some form of
host names, instead of addresses, but in the world I live in, MANY
groups are geographically dispersed and want Traffic Disruption
Appliances on each of their subnets to allow
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so easy to update in my experience.
I've always thought that practice to be
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:17:21PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 12:08:30AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
interestingly, some software vendors ship w/ license
keys tied to IP addresses... particularly for enterprise
level stuff. not so
From: Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As a practical matter, these things are quite doable.
Tony, my sense is that the hard part is not places *within one's own
organization* where one's addresses are stored, but rather in
*other organizations*; e.g. entries in *their* firewalls.
* Mark Andrews:
Except there really is no vendor lock anymore. It is
possible to automate the entire renumbering process. If
there are spots where it is not automated then they should
be found and fixed.
It's not possible to automatically renumber firewall
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 10:11:34AM -0700,
Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 44 lines which said:
As a practical matter, these things are quite doable.
Yes.
This is not theoretical, I've worked with all of the above.
Yes. But the point is that many, probably most sites do not
Jari Arkko wrote:
Sure. But I understood Michael has nothing now, so from his
point of view its a question of getting either PI from ARIN or
PA from his provider.
No, it's PI from ARIN, or PA from *some* provider.
My immediate need is for space which is unique, and has whois and reverse
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay
* Mark Andrews:
Except there really is no vendor lock anymore. It is
possible to automate the entire renumbering process. If
there are spots where it is not automated then they should
be found and fixed.
It's not possible to automatically renumber firewall
Except there really is no vendor lock anymore. It is
possible to automate the entire renumbering process. If
there are spots where it is not automated then they should
be found and fixed.
It's not possible to automatically renumber firewall configurations in
Well...
you seem to be thinking that this is a purely technical problem. it's
not.
I can go there, on this point ...
and there are valid reasons for keeping humans in the loop, and slowing
things down, when trust is involved.
... and i can go that direction, on this point, but not all
Actually it is. You just are not willing to do it. It is
100% possible to do this automatically. It just requires
the chains of trust to be setup.
If you live in a dynamic world, you setup those chains.
Just don't say that renumbering can't be automated
* Mark Andrews:
It's not possible to automatically renumber firewall configurations in
different administration domains (quite deliberately so), and you
can't take your mail reputation with you (at least not completely).
Actually it is. You just are not willing to do it.
Our
Except there really is no vendor lock anymore. It is
possible to automate the entire renumbering process. If
there are spots where it is not automated then they should
be found and fixed.
It's not possible to automatically renumber firewall configurations in
Actually it is. You just are not willing to do it. It is
100% possible to do this automatically. It just requires
the chains of trust to be setup.
=20
If you live in a dynamic world, you setup those chains.
=20
Just don't say that renumbering can't be automated
Mark,
I get renumbered in IPv4 today.
I suspect there is probably a question of scale here.
I wouldn't be surprised that a small home network with a limited
number of subnets and systems could be automatically renumbered.
I would be surprised if a network of any appreciable
because, in the end, ULA (whichever flavor it is) leads to
IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT.
I prefer losing some bytes in all my packets between locations using
different ULA-D prefixes to get an underlying VPN / tunneling
infrastructure. This allows me to keep things flat, i.e. pure routing.
Paul Vixie wrote:
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which
i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them
supports the proposal). in fact, nobody in the ietf
On 9/13/07, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which
i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them
supports the
because, in the end, ULA (whichever flavor it is) leads to
IPv6-to-IPv6
NAT.
did you read the thread some months ago? There was mention ID and LOC
splitting. ULA fits that idea almost perfect.
IP address, or part of it, can never be an ID. so i'm against of
On Sep 12, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs
Roger Jørgensen wrote:
did you read the thread some months ago? There was mention
ID and LOC splitting. ULA fits that idea almost perfect.
ID/LOC has been discussed for 11 years and canned several times.
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-odell-8+8-00.txt
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:05 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to support a non-scalable routing
subsystem.
my
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:05 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to support a non-scalable routing
subsystem.
my
Michael,
Here's a decision table for you:
1. Do you need addresses that are routable from the global
Internet, from anywhere?
(Its not clear to me that you do, because you only need to
do that within your own network and a couple of well
known external sites perhaps.)
a. If
Mark,
Except there really is no vendor lock anymore. It is
possible to automate the entire renumbering process. If
there are spots where it is not automated then they should
be found and fixed.
You must have access to technology that at least I'm
not aware of. We
my persistent question to the enterprise operator is this:
how frequently do you plan to switch your isp, or how many times
did you do that in the past?
That's actually irrelevant. Regardless of the real answer,
enterprises are
not willing to buy into vendor lock.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 04:05:09PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay
Roger,
On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which
i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them
supports
my persistent question to the enterprise operator is this:
how frequently do you plan to switch your isp, or how many times
did you do that in the past?
That's actually irrelevant. Regardless of the real answer,
enterprises are not willing to buy into vendor lock.
Hear, hear. We're making binary claims in a grey-scale world of
economics.
Put the costs on the table and let the enterprises and ISPs fight out
PI/PA.
- Ralph
On Sep 13, 2007, at Sep 13, 2007,5:27 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
wrote:
my persistent question to the enterprise
my persistent question to the enterprise operator is this:
how frequently do you plan to switch your isp, or how many times
did you do that in the past?
That's actually irrelevant. Regardless of the real answer,
enterprises are not willing to buy into vendor lock.
if the
Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:05 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to support a non-scalable routing
subsystem.
my persistent question to the enterprise operator is this:
how frequently do you plan to switch your isp, or how many times
did you do that in the past?
i have never got any reasonable answer from anyone.
OK, I'll bite. Never, and never (in nearly 20 years).
Noel Chiappa wrote:
In the enterprise world, where I live now, IPv6 is just flat out a
non-starter without PI space. Its just not even a discussion that's
even useful to have, because the answer to IPv6 without PI is just No.
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the
Mark,
Except there really is no vendor lock anymore. It is
possible to automate the entire renumbering process. If
there are spots where it is not automated then they should
be found and fixed.
You must have access to technology that at least I'm
not aware of. We
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:05 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
Let me see if I understand this. Without PI, the enterprises say
no, and with
PI, the ISP's say no. Got it.
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and
Mark Andrews wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 12:05 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises ar=
e
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to support a non-scalable routing=
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
