On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-06-19 17:18, Lixia Zhang wrote: >> someone explained to me privately that Robin's definition of "portable" >> is equivalent to PI prefixes. >> >> To me a PI prefix has 2 separable meanings: globally uniqueness, and >> portability. > > In any case, it seems to be a solution, not a requirement.
Brian, Yes and no. The requirement is that end users (meaning folks who operate servers in this case) be able to change service providers: 1. Without a major overall effort, and 2. Without requiring any changes outside of the end user's administrative control. In the past two decades, NO ONE has demonstrated a mechanism for meeting these two requirements that has proven out in practice EXCEPT for assigning PI addresses to the end user. Quite the contrary: the past decade has shown a dramatic increase in strangers filtering data by source IP address, busting the heck out of requirement 2. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to escalate the solution (PI addresses) to requirement status. If at some point in the future someone demonstrates an workable architecture which unequivocally meets the original two requirements, we can just as easily reverse the escalation. Given the history, the onus should be entirely on the newcomer to demonstrate that they really have an in-practice workable solution that doesn't require PI. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- 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
