Hi Scott, You wrote:
Robin >>> 3 - The solution must provide portable address space for Robin >>> end-user networks without impacting the scaling of the Robin >>> current BGP routing system. (The map-encap schemes do this.) > Brian >> I don't agree. The desire for "portable" prefixes is an Brian >> artefact of IPv4 experience. Let me reformulate. Brian >> Brian >> The solution must allow the option of Brian >> provider-independent address space and the option of Brian >> multiple provider-dependent address spaces for end-user Brian >> networks... > > It doesn't even need to do that. It should allow multihoming and > easy migration from one point in the topology to another. How it > does that is an open question. I think that neither you or Brian have addressed my arguments: http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg01310.html The question of how to enable end-user networks to easily choose another provider has been around for two decades or so, AFAIK. In that time, the only solution which has been developed which meets the needs of end-user networks is portable address space - PI space. Despite the elaborate and impressive nature of the automatic host address functions in IPv6, this falls a long way short of the requirements to reliably, securely, change IP addresses in configuration files of various daemons, ACLs etc, in various embedded systems, and in DNS zone files. (I am not sure that every end-user network would want to use this automatic host numbering system. Perhaps some or many networks need better security and more explicit control.) In the long-term, I agree, this remains an open question. My argument is in the context of the RRG's timetable of coming up with a reliable, promising, architectural recommendation in March 2009. 19 months after RAWS and 10 (9?) months before deadline, I argue that we need to settle on portable address space as the solution for end-user networks' need to change to another provider without unreasonable cost, disruption and risks. By doing this we can avoid spending any more time on any solution which doesn't provide portability. I believe the solution should provide portability for the largest end-user networks such as universities and corporations, to the smallest, including home-office users and single-host potentially mobile devices. Do you think we can come up with any solution for this old problem other than portability, in the next 9 months? If so, what would such a solution look like? Alternatively, do you think it is reasonable to hold our breath on this important question as if it could be solved in any way other than portability? Portability is a clear solution end-users are familiar with and actually want - and the map-encap systems provide this portability without the scaling problems which are the cause of the long-held objections to portability. - Robin -- 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
