Forming a WG to fantasize about renumbering will not suddenly remove the edge network manager's requirement for stable address space. The only way this comes close to being an Ops problem is due to the lack of reliability & scale in DNS. As long as end users feel that name resolution is insufficiently reliable to meet their business goals, they will continue to embed literal addresses in applications & databases that are outside the network manager's control. If you want to form an Ops WG, create one to provide a reliable replacement for DNS.
Architectural management of the address space belongs in this WG, and there is a requirement for space which is not currently allocated. If you don't want to participate in that discussion, fine. Just stop getting in the way of those that are trying to solve real day-to-day problems. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leif Johansson > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 8:44 AM > To: Mans Nilsson > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: inevitability of PI > > > Mans Nilsson wrote: > > > > >Still, I wonder why I'm debating this here. It is v6ops material. > > > > > Hmm Yes. One of the ops ADs even spoke up to support M�ns in > this, which is a hint as good as any imho. Go request a slot > for a renumbering-BOF > at the > next IETF and lets move on. > > Cheers Leif > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
