As of right now, I have a use case that (AFAICT) is not yet fully-supported by functional specification. So, IMHO it would be premature to turn over address delegation authority at this time.
Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 8:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt > > Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > [vixie] > > > ... and why are we wasting our keystrokes discussing this > if there's a > > > preclusive topic being discussed somewhere entirely else? > > > > I don't think it's preclusive. If that discussion does lead to an > > architectural id/locator split, it will not override what > we're discussing > > here, IMHO. We'll still have IP addresses and they will > still need to be > > unambiguous. Also, that is a discussion that is finally > happening after ten > > years of needing to happen, so it's hardly surprising that it hasn't > > converged rapidly. > > ok. > > > >> I have a strong feeling there is no consensus forming... > > > > [vixie] > > > i disagree, i've been immersed in this for a month now, > and my draft edits > > > as proposed last night represent my understanding of a potential > > > consensus, which unlike you i can feel forming. > > > > I personally am not part of it then. I don't want to see > any structured > > allocation scheme; a robotic guarantee of uniqueness is all > I want to see. > > i've been on the outside of ietf consensus more often than > inside, so you've > got my sympathy if that matters. also note, the fact that > you don't agree > does not mean consensus isn't forming. as to your specific > concern, i'm > interested in knowing more about why you want the robotic guaranty of > uniqueness to be the only feature. others here have made > compelling cases > for a larger feature set for ULA-C, and yet you are unmoved. > your words... > > > I don't want to facilitate making these things look like a > binary hierarchy, > > because that will cause people to believe for the next 50 > years that they > > aggregate and are routeable. I also don't want to > accidentally create a > > business in selling large integers, which would be the > effect of structured > > registration as opposed to robotic random numbers. > > ...involve a lot of unsupported predictions, and sound > somewhat emotional. i > don't think that we should deny others the features they're > asking for on the > basis of what you don't want, especially since the things you > say you don't > want aren't obviously inevitable, or obviously bad, to > anybody else we've > heard from. if you can make a compelling case for why these > results are > inevitable AND why they would be bad, then you could win the elusive > "consensus" over to your side. otherwise i think you're > going to be on the > outside of this one. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
