Alan E. Beard wrote: > ... > What think ye all? We are at an impass. The right outcome is that multi6 defines an approach that works for end sites, while scaling appropriately for the ISP concerns. The reality is that multi6 is off in the weeds rearchitecting the Internet, with no more hope of a useful outcome than the IRTF routing research wg has produced over the last N years. Unfortunately, this puts the ADs in a bind, because they would have a hard time justifing that the IPv6 wg should be tasked with defining an operational plan that an Operations Area wg is already tasked to do.
It could be argued that since we are talking about allocations which conform to addr-arch-v3, the IETF is not the right place for the discussion anyway. The sticking point is that if we are talking about space other than 0x001, IANA would need to allocate that, which they are reluctant to do so without IESG buy-in, and since the IESG is in a bind, nothing can happen. Another data point for the discussion. At the NANOG earlier this week, Daniel Golding presented a discussion (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/golding.html) about evolving the peering/inter-provider relationships along the lines where regional exchanges might reasonably become brokers between the regional ISPs & the transit providers. It is exactly that business model where PI approaches like Michele's or mine work well. Right now the IETF is stuck working on the assumption that we have to have a single global DFZ that knows all TE exception cases (even outside the scope of where they make sense), and that both the ISP & the end customers get to have full control of all the knobs. One could argue that it is the IETFs role to define the knobs, get out of the way, then watch and take the lessons learned as input for revising the function of said knobs. While it is frequently attempted, it is rarely wise to legislate operational behavior through the standards process. Despite all that, several people have continued to persue personal drafts with the expectation that eventually an appropriate forum will be found. Michele maintains a site with the active efforts at: http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/ I have a document that describes the situation and need for PI: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ipv6piaddressusage-04.txt and a companion doc which describes one approach to a PI allocation scheme: http://www.tndh.net/~tony/ietf/ipv6piaddressformat-04.txt both of which I plan to refresh before the cutoff. Comments are welcome. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
