David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 15, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
The IETF cannot legislate prefix lengths, but the argument behind
conservation beyond /48 would be utterly silly and demonstrates a
"revenue opportunity", plain and simple.
When multiple /19s and /20s have been allocated and there are rumors of
much shorter prefixes which can be justified under the current rules,
I'm not so sure discussions about conservation can be classified as
"utterly silly".
Did you see the words "beyond /48" somewhere above, David? I'm not
saying we should be blowing allocations like /19s and /20s (although I
would be interested in data on that and the ).
This is a matter of timescale. Prefixes should be expected to change.
In fact, SHIM6 should be able to provide equivalent of SCTP's ADD-IP
to *devalue* prefix stability.
Unfortunately, since applications are aware of IP address structures
(both v4 and, sadly, v6), you'll need to rewrite all applications,
libraries, and kernels to tolerate changes in those addresses at
arbitrary times or face broken connections or misdirected packets. An
apparent base assumption in IPv4 was that addresses were stable over a
"session" (be it connection-oriented or connectionless). This
assumption permeates every IP stack. Given DNS root server IP addresses
retired over 10 years ago still get 30 queries per second, I doubt
prefixes can be expected to change by all applications in our lifetimes.
This is the purpose of SHIM6. It is not something meant to happen
overnight. And it is not something that is meant as a forklift upgrade.
And I will be you dollars to doughnuts that those 30q/s are not
harming any application that anyone cares about (other than generating
unnecessary load).
Eliot
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
