Michel,
>
> > Tim Hartrick wrote:
> > If we are seriously considering doing PI allocations then
> > we should probably start the process of collecting
> > proposals for how to make it scale.
>
> This is the semantics police speaking:
> PI = Does *NOT* scale.
>
> Tim, I don't doubt your intentions, but please don't call it scalable
> PI. There is no such thing. Please call it GAPI, GUPI, xxPI but not PI.
>
I don't see how my intentions could be in doubt and implicit in my statement
above was an understanding that, given the current centralized routing
architecture, PI addresses don't scale. And, I have serious doubts that
they will ever scale. But, if that is the case and we are going to be
forbidden from seeking other solutions that involve site-local addressing and
renumbering then we have one hell of a pickle here. In that case NAT
is inevitable because small and medium size enterprises that can't pass them-
selves off as providers will simply refuse to be held hostage by an ISP and
home users will not pay extra for something that should be free.
All these various ***PI addresses that have been referenced recently on this
list have no definition in a draft of RFC so trying to address their
properties for solving the current problem set is fruitless. In the limit
all of them amounted to being private address space with varying degrees of
potential for collision and varying degrees of routability outside the
organization.
Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
