Keith Moore wrote: > > > I don't think stability is the issue. global addrs need to > > > be reasonably > > > stable (which is to say, on the order of MTBFs for > reliable machines) > > > whether or not the prefix is provider-based, topology-based, or > > > assigned to the site. the idea that a prefix can be changed > > > at a whim > > > is just a fantasy. > > > > Clearly you still live in the fantasy land where pleanty of > addresses > > were handed out 20 years ago, the birds sing, the air is > always clean, > > and the sun always shines... Changing prefixes is the new reality. I > > know first hand as my ISP recently changed their subnet prefix & > > allocations overnight without bothering to inform anyone. > > Tony, > > This kind of statement is a personal attack and it has no > place in IETF. > > Also, you apparently need to reread what I wrote, because you missed > it the first time. > > Keith
It was not intended as a personal attack, but I agree it can be read that way so I apologize for any misunderstanding. The statement I was responding to was "the idea that a prefix can be changed at a whim is just a fantasy.". The point is that arbitrary & random prefix changes are reality and believing it doesn't happen is the fantasy. While it is nice to believe that providers that do this are subject to customer retaliation, where are the customers going to go? If the SP otherwise provides the best service available (or increasingly the only service), the renumbering even is a fact of life. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
