Robert Elz wrote: > Yes, that would be fine, and that's just what Steve Blake suggested in > a message sent a few minute after yours. Stable addressing is what's > needed - the bit pattern that identifies it isn't important. > > But note the bit patterns suggested in Steve's message - his suggestion > becomes pretty much the same as the suggestion that I made a long time > ago, to stick identifiers in the upper bits of the SL address (he also
No claims of originality on my part. > has NUSLA's in there, just to keep everyone happy - and retains current > SL addresses, though I'm not sure why on that) - this suggestion was They are out-of-the-box, for those (the majority of users, probably) who can't be bothered to configure a NUSLA. > thrown out when suggested, the NUSLA suggestion was essentially abandoned, > and every time anyone suggests putting IDs of any kind in those bits, the > suggestion gets laughed at (with no actual technical rationale at all). > > So my suspicion is that this kind of approach isn't going to work. > > Your suggestion, which is essentially the same as the one I made a long > time ago for all practical purposes, raises the question (or this is what > was put to me) of just who is going to administer this extra address space, > and wouldn't that be a bunch of extra work that no-one wants to do. > > At the time (and still) I personally think this is a pathetic excuse for > an argument, but it seemed to be the one that convinced people more than > anything else - fear of creating another ICANN look-like bureaucracy (or > giving that one even more things to make a mess of). > > kre > > ps: one final comment on Steve's suggestions - I'm not sure that AS > numbers are the ideal thing to use here - for two reasons. One they're > already carried around in the routing system, which might lead some people > to try and use them to make these addresses globally routable, which would > be a big mistake, and second, because they are a routing identifier, I > think it would be best not to confuse things by also making them an > addressing identifier - allocating numbers is such a trivial task that > I think we can just create a new set, or could, if there was any chance of > a proposal like this being adopted, which I doubt. AS numbers have an existing infrastructure for allocation, and they are unique. The set of nets that would ever care about true uniqueness probably intersects heavily with the set that would own an AS# anyway (although the first set might be the null-set for all I know). As to whether they are ever globally routable: that is a business issue between a customer and his provider. Any IETF prohibitions on this would be so much hot air. Note that draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-02.txt addresses are a perfectly suitable alternative to my proposal (at least in some cases), but they aren't zero-cost to acquire either. Regards, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ericsson IP Infrastructure 919-472-9913 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
