> > existing policy constraints for address allocation no > longer apply. > > The RIRs could continue to hand out 'routing slot conservation > > policy'-constrained LOCs since they have the technical > > Let's not go this route. Let's have service providers > allocate RLOCs to sites. And just have RIRs allocate > EID-prefixes to sites. But RIRs would allocate PA RLOC > prefixes to service providers. > > Make sense?
IMHO, It doesn't matter whether RIRs or NANPA like national allocation entities allocate EID resources, as long as the allocation is irrelevant to the service providers, to which the site is connected. > > expertise to know what this means. They could also hand > out the EIDs, > > but since the policy regime for EID allocation is fundamentally > > different than LOCs, it might make sense for other bodies (e.g., > > national allocation entities like NANPA in the +1 telephone > region) to > > handle that task. > > By allocating EID-prefixes based solely on address usage, you > only have a one-dimensional variable. > > Let me be clear, I am not disagreeing with anything you are > saying, I'm just adding more to it. Hope you agree with my statements. > > > Of course, if EIDs aren't handed out hierarchically, the existing > > ACL models that rely on locator semantics would obviously break. > > Some argue this wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing... > > I think a non-starter. We shouldn't let this happen. I agree with Dino's opinion. I believe that the flat ID is easy to use for users but hard to manage for network operators. Freedom (e.g. information privacy benefits from the flat ID) sometimes conflicts with Administration, we should consider some tradeoff between them. Xiaohu _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
