> I have to use the same word as Richard did before: crazyness. let's just say that there's a lot of craziness going around. > Keith, what you are saying here is that the utility company is going to > have to use PA addresses, that it does not own, to configure tens of > thousands of devices on thousands of subnets, and be forced to renumber > if they want to switch ISPs, even though these devices have nothing to > do with the public Internet, just because you don't like SLs.
and what you are saying is that everybody who wants to network together large number of devices is going to create their own network infrastructure so they can use SL addresses (because dealing with globals is Just Too Onerous) -- and that everybody else on the Internet needs to be burdened with SLs just so they can do that. I don't buy that for a nanosecond. first, I don't buy that provider-based addresses are inherently that much of a burden. and it's far easier to solve the renumbering problem (particularly for special-purpose devices) than to solve the SL addressibility problem. second, I don't buy that we're stuck with provider-based addresses anyway. third, I don't buy that every company wants to set up its own infrastructure to network to remote devices when they can take bids from competing providers who already have infrastructure - or even use a mixture of providers. (for instance, you can combine wired, wireless, satellite depending on where your devices are) fourth, I don't buy that the existence of provider-based addresses is a compelling reason to burden us with SLs. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
