Tony, > Hi Eric, > > |I also, perhaps incorrectly, perceive that you don't > |seem to realize that the difference between ISPs is trivial when > |compared to the extreme differences between end users. I state that any > |model that treats all end users as equivalent is inherently broken and > |any Internet solution based on such a faulty notion is unlikely to > |succeed because it does not recognize reality. > > I'm failing to see what's relevant here. Of course I don't see all users as > equivalent or all ISPs as equivalent. Arguing about their relative > differences doesn't seem to shed any particular insight into the routing > architecture. > > Treating all end users as equivalent isn't my position, it's simply an > observation about the behavior of many ISPs when it comes to PI. The > reality is that the sales person will simply accept PI from just about > anyone. Thus, trying to get any meaningful architectural difference in the > treatment of different end-sites is going to be problematic at best. > > > |When we talk about PI versus PA space we are really talking about > |whether network addresses are owned or leased. We are also > |talking about > |business dependencies. You can look up our public PI address space and > |see its scope. What I want you to realize is that when we > |became part of > |the Internet we owned our own addresses -- that is the model that we > |bought into. Certain forces are trying to re-define that model, trying > |to compel us to lease addresses and to become dependent upon outside > |ISPs that are smaller than us. How dare they!! Who are they to try to > |put our business at risk? Whether they realize it or not, the new model > |that they are trying to foist upon us resembles blackmail -- > |switch ISPs > |and it will cost you an arm and a leg. This is unacceptable. The PI > |space is a non-negotiable fact. Any model that does not accept PI for > |large end users for *both* IPv4 and IPv6 is inherently broken. > > So you say. Yet your 'business' model when extended simply puts the entire > Internet at risk. You'll pardon us if we do something else then. > > > |Concerning your equation that PI equals NAT, I can only say Bah! (or > |whatever the English equivalent is for the German doch!). That is > |ridiculous. (I.e., it is a function of the large multiplicity of > |different PI spaces, not the existence of PI itself -- 2000 > |different PI > |spaces in IPv6 will not harm the Internet.) However, let's pretend that > |it is accurate. Given that, then NATs are ****vastly**** preferable to > |losing PI. Vastly. Incomparably so. > > > 2000 different PI spaces are irrelevant. In fact, the v4 swamp is already > much bigger than that today. The real problem is that 2^48 PI spaces are > what will happen if nothing changes. If there is no end site renumbering to > get out of this mode, then the only way to make that addressing aggregatable > is to translate it into an alternate space. That makes it effectively NAT.
I'd like to pose the following two questions: 1. Do folks agree that to get to the point where 2^48 PI spaces would become a reality is likely to require *massive* deployment of v6-to-v4 NAT ? 2. If the answer to the first question is "yes", then are we just arguing whether in addition to v6-to-v4 NAT we should also have v6-to-v6 NAT ? Yakov. -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg