-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-11-20, at 05.13, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
This does not mean that you are bound to a single number, the same you
are not bound to a single mobile. Let not think "the users should do
it the way I think", but "I am to permit the users to do it the way I
never thought they would do it", because it is generally the way these
people behave ....
Does this respond your remark?
No, I made a poor attempt at being sarcastic. John seems to have gotten
my point and explained it well.
Everyone agrees that we need more addresses; so everything seems fine.
Except that it does not catch. Why ?
I think Brian is right when he says we don't know this yet.
I think it does not catch, because this is the old IPv4 model, that it
still relies on ISPs and that if addresses are longer they still are
far too short. Because they are managed by RIRs who have no societal
and no political power. But mainly because we consider the wrong
product: no one is interested in the Version 6 of the IP protocol.
There are a lot of people interested in the management and political
capacity to manage /128 long addresses.
The real product is the addressing plan. And the reasons why no one is
excited are that:
- these addresses are managed "a la IPv4", as a unique Vint
Cerf's/ICANN numbering area. This is what they want to correct with
ITU. I submit there is no conflict. IPv6 has 6 different numbering
plans. Let say that 001 is for the US Vint's legacy and 011 for
international. That Vint can manage the 001 area and the ITU the 011
area. This is status quo.
Actually not. Currently there is (at least in perception) a global
addressing policy. This means that a change in policy that would affect
the organizations carrying the burden of the changes (providers) is
transparent to them, and they and anyone else can influence it. In your
world this does not hold so it's not status quo.
- now, the way ITU wants to manage the international digital address
numbering plan is in using DCC (or the like). (DCC is data country
code). The same as there are ccTLDs in naming. So Frank has no problem
for his SOPAC islands. They are entitled as many addresses as others.
Does that change anything for the RIRs and the routing? No, this is
simple address management.
The problem with the SOPAC islands is artificial and AFAIK in the
process of being solved. The DCC plan is naive at best, and already
implemented in several countries by he use of NIRs. So if a country
feels this is a real need, it is already done in the current system.
- the way the countries will manage their numbering space is up to
them. But if I refer to the telephone solutions, my guess is that many
will differentiate routing and addressing in a very simple way (and
this is certainly what the ART (French FCC) wants to hear about -
because this is what users want : IP addresses are to be independent
from the ISP). This means that they will allocate national IDs that
you will be able to use as a NetworkID or as a UserID.
And multinationals? Routing? This has been discussed at great length
several times in several forums. What if I as an end-user would get a
better deal if I locked my self in to a specific provider with their
addresses? That is my right!
And you will probably get the UserID for free at birth or creation,
probably additional ones on a small fee and you will pay for the
routing to your NetworkID.
....and someone hacks that nice system and yoou have rendered all the
userIDs insecure and not trustworthy.
I still think the ITU proposal is non-workable and is yet a variation
of (albeit a poor one) geographical addressing.
- - kurtis -
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1
iQA/AwUBQZ9236arNKXTPFCVEQItDwCg8rE4VFTabqkqVExcRYwCW0tPbRoAnj3C
4AqJ4qv8yfeS6t3g0vi147ch
=8cX2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf