Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|--On s�ndag, november 10, 2002 15:25:56 -0500 Dan Lanciani
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|> As long as we are stuck with a totally non-scalable address allocation
|> system (remember, provider-based aggregated addressing consumes address
|> space *exponentially* in the number of providers in the service chain)
|> end users need some way to provision local systems with stable addresses.
|> So far, nobody has proposed a viable alternative to scoped addresses.
|
|metro addressing?
Perhaps. I'd have to hear the details (in particular the costs).
|btw, my current naive prediction of the way the Internet will evolve is
|that unless new invention occurs, the default-free zone will eventually be
|flat-routing on the number of ISPs in the world, and that this number will
|have 5 digits.
Sadly, I think that you are correct, at least to a first approximation. There
will probably also be a few routes for companies big enough to demand and get
true single-prefix multi-homing (though I guess they could just declare that
they are ISPs). The rest of us will have to make do without such luxuries.
I suspect that arguments similar to those against application support for
site-locals will render multi-prefix multi-homing less than wonderful.
|stable addresses for the lifetime of your ISP service contract seems like a
|not too terrible deal,
It's certainly not as good a deal as provider-independent addresses. The
extent to which the deal is not too terrible would depend on how much you
have to pay for the privilege.
|if renumbering is easy.
easy for the customer as opposed to easy for the ISP...
Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Harald,
|
|I think this probably boils down to something
|completely non-technical: do people view IP
|addresses as "addresses" ala street addresses,
|etc, or do they view them as possessions like
|(now) phone numbers and email addresses. Though
|the net was designed for "addresses",
Which net? IP addresses have always been treated as possessions. The
big paradigm shift came when they went from being possessions of end
users to possessions of ISPs, with ISPs renting them back to end users.
Remember, even when the provider-allocated aggregation hack was originally
proposed as a temporary work-around for limited memory expandability in
certain routers, the promise was that space so allocated would still belong
to the end user and be portable. (Supposedly by the time enough people had
switched ISPs to expand the tables the hardware would have caught up.) That
promise lasted what, two months? It's a little like the promise of site-
local addressing.
If global/routable IP addresses really worked like street addresses I think
you would see a lot less demand for other stable address space. People know
that there is a certain overhead associated with a physical move, and switching
IP addresses along with phone numbers, street addresses on business cards, etc.,
would not be a big deal. But IP addresses like that aren't really available.
It is unreasonable to claim that an IP address is like a street address in the
sense that it tells which ISP you currently "live" at.
|I suspect
|that they are viewed more as possessions which is
|an obvious problem.
Why is it a problem?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
