"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> 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 in the context of these discussions has always meant simply that the address is provider independent. |"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. This is exactly why I asked you to provide your definition for PI. |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. It is clear now, after three rounds, that you have found a definition that suits your "PI = Does *NOT* scale" assertion. Combined with your implicit assumption that linear growth of the routing tables does not scale you have a truism. And you have found a way to suggest that provider-independent addressing does not scale, even though you are really talking about something completely different. Other than creating FUD, how is this helpful? |> You have also declined to define what you would consider |> acceptable scalability. | |1 billion sites is the lowest figure being considered. _Lowest_. "1 billion sites" does *NOT* (see, I can use all caps too) express anything about scalability. It is the wrong data type. I've already explained this once. Either you really don't understand the meaning of scalability or you aren't serious about discussing it. |> 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. Obviously you aren't serious about discussing the actual scaling issues. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
