Brian E Carpenter writes:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
> > Which leads *directly* to NAT's at "local"
> > boundaries and /48's in the DFZ.
>
> As has been said by various people, all this is somewhat orthogonal to
> whether NAT's appear. If we provide
> a) unambiguous provider-independent prefixes
> b) good mechanisms for running with these *in parallel* with routeable
> provider prefixes
> c) site multihoming
> d) renumbering tools
>
> we'll have done about all we can do, I believe, to make NAT unnecessary
> and more painful than the alternative. But as usual, it's not the
> IETF that decides what gets sold and used.
It seems to me that in order to make "progress"
you seem to be saying that I have to make a leap
of faith that non-globally routable provider
independent addresses will not be abused. That is,
that people will not try to make the globally
routable by either NAT'ing them, or getting
providers to advertise the prefix. I'm sorry, but
nothing that goes on today gives me any reason to
make such a leap.
> > And Fred's draft really shows how little we know
> > about renumbering in the real world.
> >
> > > I think we are way past the point in history where it is fruitful to
> > > make the sort of free-space wish-the-world-was-different analysis
> > > you are advocating. Hinden/Haberman leads to simple, straightforward
> > > changes to shipping code and that's all we can afford now.
> >
> > I'm having a very difficult time reconciling what
> > you're saying here with your "Let's abolish" post.
>
> Why? My point about the existing notion of scope is
> that it is not useful, so we can drop it.
Well, I don't disagree. My larger point is the
desire for scoped addresses are a symptom of
requirements not being met (duh) but the heart of
the problem is that they are ignoring other
serious problems and/or requirements in their rush
to make a stopgap. Having all of the requirements
well know would be extremely helpful so that the
deficiencies can be evaluated instead of swept
under the rug.
> No. I'm very frustrated at how slowly all this has developed,
> but we should certainly get a) through d) above done.
What do you propose? The sticking point is and has
for a very long time been (a). You see it as
resolved, I don't. Why should I believe that this
will not result in NAT's, exponential route
growth, or most likely both? Also: you I believe
questioned the very premise of whether "local"
applications (eg, could use non-globally routable
addresses) were even particularly useful in real
life. If that's true, then what problem is (a)
solving?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
