> From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf(_at_)tndh(_dot_)net>
> portability could be one outcome.
Given that the point of this PI exercise seems to be to increase the
viability of IPv6, maybe you should go for it, and add number portability
too? That should further increase the viability.
> it is manageable to deal with porting between providers within a city,
> but not between cities
Metro addressing! All those old classics are making a comeback...
> those groups couldn't see the forest for the trees. They were
> absolutely technically informed, but completely unwilling to listen to
> the big picture political reality.
And the current group has a superior grasp of the all-around picture? Ah, got
> an attempt to get in front of what is a growing wave of demand to head
> off an outright pronouncement from outside the community which will
> result in number portability.
Since there's no technical difference between PI and number portability, I
expect approval of PI-space will lead to portability anyway.
Yes, the current criteria for PI-space are rather limited, but since there's
no particular technical rationale for picking /N versus /M, I expect to see a
salami-slicing political debate in which people will demand smaller and
smaller blocks be supported, because to do anything else is dumping on the
"little guy", while letting the "big players" have acess to something the
small players don't.
Sigh, we're going to be paying the price for not (long ago) setting up a
charging system for having a route be visible in the "default-free zone".
> there is a middle ground that gets messy because it does not have
> simple solutions without constraining topology.
> That set of requirements leads to structured allocations and topology
> constraints. Both sides will have to give
I'm curious to hear what the ISP's will have to say about this "topology
Ietf mailing list