James Kempf wrote: > The upshot of what I am saying is that I believe this is not a > purely > technical problem. There are sociological and business aspects > of it that suggest a solution which leverages off the existing > authentication/business infrastructure is likely to be more of interest > to > existing ISPs and future wireless ISPs. > > Now, that said, I agree that an infrastructureless solution may be of > interest in some circumstances. It may even be of interest to ISPs, > if the details are right. But I don't think there will ever be a case > where an ISP will let a host on their network without requiring > some kind of authentication as to the right of that host to use > the network (unless, of course, the ISP is giving away the > service).
True. However, I wouldn't like to design the Internet _just_ for the ISPs and the commercial providers. If I'm a small business or a home, I want to set-up my networks without infrastructure, and I want it to "just work". For instance, I could lay a network in my home, expect IPv6 to work without major holes even if I might be using open wireless LANs, and I would also expect to use other types of infrastructureless technology, such SSH for my e-mail forwarding and telnetting needs. I don't want to set-up anything, unless we can prove that it is necessary. And it doesn't appear to be, based on proof by example i.e. some proposals that don't need infrastructure. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
