I keep thinking that all of this sounds like people looking for default solutions to custom problems. If you want to have a custom connection between specific private networks there will necessarily be some custom configuration. A plug-and-play solution just will not work without adding rediculous layers of complexity to the method.
Early network and protocol designers worked very hard to keep K.I.S.S. as a basic principle. Lower complexity will of course mean reduced functionality, but it also means increased reliability and easier healing. It is sort of like the operating system on your workstation.. if you want to preload every possible driver for every possible piece of hardware that is certainly possible, and may even make things easier for someone. It will also make everyone's system requirements huge, increase boot time drastically, affect performance and add many administrative requirements for patches and updates. The basic network protocols should be as simple as absolutely possible, with the minimum core set functionality required. If end users want added features then they need to figure out how to do that within the protocol framework. I have yet to see a consensus that ULA-C is a basic required capability, though I have seen cases explained where it would be useful to a small number of users. The decision to make is whether the benefit to the few who would take advantage of it is worth the cost to the rest of the world. The problem I see with having small ULA-C allocations is that as people move around geographically those allocations will lose aggrebility. Until everyone in the world has big iron routers (When you want to send me mine for free I will be happy to accept it) many or most network administrators will be forced to filter small routes to protect their route processors. This may also apply to the root DNS servers. They too must have some limit of routes they can serve. > -----Original Message----- > From: james woodyatt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:07 PM > To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > On Jun 25, 2007, at 17:01, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > > i.e. if we all pick numbers and stuff them into the DNS, > then by the > > time the 1,240,000 selection had taken place the probability that a > > collision has occurred exceeds 0.5 > > That's only a problem for people who have to pick a number > that collides with absolutely none of the other 1,240,000 > numbers. I think no one will ever have to do that, and > *moreover* I think that anybody who *does* think they'll have > to do that has some explaining to do before we worry about > their problem. > > Who's going to do that, and why? By the way, that is *NOT* a > rhetorical question. I really want to know the answer. > > > -- > james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > member of technical staff, communications engineering > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
