Dan, > Dan Lanciani wrote: > You are confusing the portability attribute of the address with > the implementation of its routing. By the definition you chose, > PI is a type of address. It is not a routing mechanism.
This is not the way "PI" is being understood in the realm that deals with them, the RIRs. "PI" does not only mean portability, it also means the routing mechanism that is (and always has been) in use, which is to announce the prefix in the global routing table, making it grow. I'm sorry I quoted the wrong document; my bad. This is what I meant to quote: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/pi-pa.html It is clear that "PI" is associated with an entry in the global routing table. > You have also declined to define what you would consider > acceptable scalability. 1 billion sites is the lowest figure being considered. _Lowest_. > You seem to be saying that you aren't happy with a solution > unless it allows yesterday's archaic routing protocols running > on today's hardware to handle the projected growth of the next > decade. If you donate, let's say, US$100 billion to telcos to build a completely new architecture and backbone to support IPv6, you would have solved a great deal of an issue. Credit card number, please. > Such a requirement constrains the solution beyond any hope of progress. Not at all. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
