Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:28:07 -0800
From: Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <v04220811b6b29a21f524@[10.19.130.188]>
Dear Dr Blanket...
| Exactly. The last thing we want to do is establish yet another numbering
| space that needs to be globally administered,
| And then there may be other counter arguments I've forgotten. It's
| certainly true that we've been over this question a number of times
| in the past, so if we're really going to dredge it up again, we
| should at least do some digging in the archives to make sure we
| don't spend a lot of time rediscovering (or worse, failing to
| rediscover) previously identified issues.
I remember the arguments, and I don't recall a technical one among them.
They're all this FUD.
What's more, this stuff is an even weaker argument than the arguments
made by those opposed to requiring security (encryption in particular)
in IPv6 - at least there were real (non-technical) problems to be
overcome in that case, rather than just the fear of potential political
problems here.
Now it is probably also true that the technical arguments in favour of
having globally unique non-routable addresses (in addition to the
routable ones) aren't as strong as the technical arguments in favour
of security, but it would be nice if we (more or less technical people)
could confine ourselves to the technical arguments, and ignore this
nonsense about how difficult it will be to assign consecutive integers.
Even more so, if they would not actually be required for anything
to operate (just an enhancement that a site might prefer to have).
kre
ps: but yes, the archives should be checked...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
