Tim,

> Tim Hartrick wrote:
> 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.

You are giving up too early. Yes, PI is unlikely to scale (if it could,
we would have a clue on how to do it by now). Yes, if we don't give
*something* that provides the perks of PI, NAT is inevitable. Now, that
something does *not* need to be PI, it just needs to be close enough.

> 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.

None of what has been floating around recently had a goal to provide a
replacement for PI. There was to trends for site-locals, one that would
make them unusable for connected site, the other one that would make
them unique in order to facilitate site mergers. There has been some
vague discussions about non site-local unique addresses, but nothing
concrete.

Solutions that propose a replacement to PI are and have always been part
of the multihoming realm.

Michel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to