From: Randall Atkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Users do NOT generally believe they want or need "portable address >space" -- except as an engineering mechanism to achieve the other >higher-level capabilities.
>So if there are alternative architectures that provide those >capabilities without requiring "portable address space", then users >will not *care* whether they have "portable address space" or not >(provided they can have the capabilities in some other way). >Users care about capabilities, not the engineering mechanism. I resonate with Randall's posting: user's aren't dictating technical solutions, we have merely consistently stated that we don't want business decisions vis-à-vis ISPs (multi-homing, switching ISPs, etc.) to result in expensive internal address re-assignments for us. Brian Carpenter is hopefully right that IPv6 is different than IPv4 in regards to the pain of massive address re-assignment -- such was certainly many of our intent when we helped design IPv6. However, current common belief is skeptical about that conclusion because the downside of being wrong is very considerable for us. If we're going to leverage Brian's arguments in this matter, then what we need is a very large corporation to be the "guinea pig" to see whether our continued fears are justified or not. Any volunteers? Failing that, then could some university model and simulate (M&S) this issue? --Eric -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
