Brian, > If you are correct, exactly the same will happen with > PA space.
[I assume that you are referring to jj's proposal] In the "putting the RIRs out of business" dept, no (because LIRs would still pay to obtain PA space). In the "explosion of the routing table" dept, the risk is a lot lesser for three reasons: - No matter what the "guarantees" that a LIR would give about the allocating permanently a block to a site, it still remains PA which means that the incentive to get it routed globally is not nearly as strong. - NRENs and some other organizations will likely continue filtering long PA prefixes. - In case a LIR provides addresses and not transit, they will likely blackhole the block they allocated to that purpose (because of economic reasons, not because the IETF says so), making routing longer prefixes within that block moot. In other words: - There is a strong and unfulfilled demand for globally routable PI. - Neither Bob or jj's proposals are aimed at providing it. However, - jj's proposal does not make it as globally routable PI. Simply does not work. Yes it could eventually be perverted into that, but as the "consumer" I am not buying it as a good enough PI solution. - There is nothing that stands between Bob's proposal and the PI swamp except an IETF edict that says "don't do it because it's the wrong thing to do" which does not stand against any money argument. As we have seen with the Elz appeal recently, it is none of the IETF's business to prevent users to misconfigure networks nor to force vendors to release products that can't be misconfigured. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
