It seems to me that Tony is correct that we have consensus that the currently implemented and deployed tools for renumbering are inadequate.
I also think Tony is correct that this adversely impacts virtually all classes of future architecture that have been discussed seriously within the Routing RG so far. The various counter-claims that various folks have posted recently each seem far from obvious to me. If those claims are valid, then the existing explanations aren't sufficiently clear and complete to be really persuasive. So it seems to me that we are back at a familiar place -- "Renumbering Needs Work". So folks who are inclined to advocate for one approach over another might want to go see what renumbering technologies they can invent/discover that would make renumbering really practical within the context of the architecture(s) they are advocating. Other folks might want to think much more generally about what new approaches to renumbering can be either invented or discovered. I am optimistic that new approaches can be devised. I'm not a cynic that thinks the community has to remain in the "renumbering is hard and painful" neighborhood permanently (nor even remain their for my working lifetime). [All this is why I think that PI address space has never really been a functional requirement, but instead is a current workaround for the technology gaps in renumbering.] Brian Carpenter and I had talked about renumbering offline within the past fortnight. We plan to put together a draft describing the tools already deployed and where we see gaps. Maybe an updated document of that sort can help focus folks research into the most problematic areas. Cheers, Ran -- 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
