From the operator perspective, the demand is for address space that isarchitecturally set aside as private use, locally controlled. That did not initially exist in IPv4, and history shows that people took whatever bit patterns looked interesting.
I could see an argument for both enterprises and service providers, but the argument is different. In the case of enterprises, they wanted the space because they couldn't get enough out of the registries, as we were running out of space with v4. They also wanted the space because renumbering is a painful operation. I would agree that is still a fundamental problem that MUST be addressed. This is why I think we should work on Fred's draft.
With service providers, the argument is one of proxy for enterprises, where they were unable to get space for them, and needed a solution. That problem should be all but gone.
But auditors are not running the RIR's. Are you inserting an explicit extra cost into the system to have a 3rd party auditor certify the requests to the RIR's?
Of course not. But look, we've just taken a left turn in the discussion. Now what you're saying is that we don't have a scalable process to give every host a globally routable address. We need that no matter the outcome of this discussion!
Eliot
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
