Tim Hartrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Designing tools that yield the desired results only when applied to a
|> competitive environment (assuming there is no valid technical reason
|> for the limitation) is at best bad engineering. Doing so when there
|> is good evidence that the competitive environment will not exist begins
|> to look disingenuous.
|>
|
|Sure, if one doesn't accept that routing aggregation is important then
|of course we can go back to PI space just like good old IPv4. If in fact
|aggregation isn't important then it would be disingenuous to continue down
|a design path that puts ISPs in the driver's seat to the detriment of end
|users. I don't follow the research in this area well enough to know whether
|or not there are serious alternatives to routing aggregation techniques like
|CIDR. If there are then I would be very happy to forget all about site-local
|addresses and PA address space. Life would be a lot simpler.
I was actually referring to the design decision to limit site locals on the
grounds that they are not needed in a competitive environment that will
supposedly result in greater global address availability. Portable identifiers
and provider-independent address space (which are both PI :) are a different
kettle of fish. There are certainly ways to attack the problem, but I've
found that attempts to discuss them result in even more negative response
than was elicited in the recent site-local debate...
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
