Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > >This is the semantics police speaking: > >PI = Does *NOT* scale. > > Starting with this assumption leads us to two bad choices. Maybe it > is time to question this assumption? > > >Same here. I did not comment on this before, but I think that what > >Margaret really means here is: > > > > > This is the crux of why I believe that we will need to find a > >| > way to return to **A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES THE PERKS OF** stable, > > > provider-independent, globally-routable addresses to avoid NAT > > > in IPv6. > > I said what I really meant... > > I think that we should find a way to return to stable, globally-routable, > provider-independent addresses that are allocated to homes & enterprises. > Addresses that do not change when you change ISPs, and that cannot be > changed by your ISP. Real PI addresses. Just like the original addresses > allocated in IPv4.
But the problem remains as hard as it was in 1992. We don't know how to aggregate routes for such addresses, and we don't know how to scale the routing system without aggregation. Solve either of those problems and you're done. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
