[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The more that you require the other person to learn and understand, the
harder it is to convince them of something or displace a mistaken idea.
Have you read the analysis pieces on how, "Powerpoint doomed the
Columbia" (space shuttle)?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901444.html
It basically details how use of "summary information" in powerpoint
slides, resulted in too little
real information being given to managers, who were then unable to
appreciate the important details
that affected the decisions on what to do about a problem.
It doomed the Columbia, and killed seven astronauts.
Sometimes it is important to ensure the other person gets *all* the
information they need,
even if it seems like it is too much information.
It matters when people make claims about IPv6 exhaustion based on
2000::3
I hope that isn't how you are characterizing my proposal, or the
underlying premise.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
What I *am* concerned about, is maintaining 1 prefix per ASN, to prevent
routing table bloat.
That was, and is, the driving motivation for preventing *LIR* allocation
exhaustion and re-allocation.
There is no doubt that RIRs will have way, way, way more space than LIRs
will be able to consume
in any reasonable time-frame. The only issue is, how frequently LIRs
need to get more space.
In an ideal world, that would be as close to "never" as possible.
This is an example of the differences of opinions between degrees of
importance of a particular goal, even
when everyone believes that the negation of that goal is universally
considered "bad":
-> Keeping the routing table in the DFZ from growing out of control.
Rational folks can disagree on how much this needs to be contained.
I'm not aware of anyone advocating for allowing the DFZ to grow
unconstrained, quickly, or in an anarchistic manner.
The 6MAN charter says that this WG is for the maintenance, upkeep and
advancement of the IPv6 protocol.
I don't speak for 6man. However, let me opine, if you will.
Advancement of a protocol != advancement of a specific deployed internet
(The Internet),
or of advancement of the *use* of the protocol in a particular environment.
I believe "advancement" means incremental improvements and innovations.
Basically, this boils down to whatever the WG chair, AD, and consensus
of the WG say it is.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
