At 4:36 PM -0400 8/29/07, Keith Moore wrote:
no demonstration has been made that what IETF provided is "not
operationally feasible". also, I suggest that the RIRs are only
considering operations from a narrow point-of-view.
Besides the lack of widespread operational adoption, no, no one has
proven it can't work. If "it" was operationally feasible, would we
be discussing this now?
The RIRs do not limit the discussion of operations experience to a
narrow few sources, rather the the discussion is open to all and an
array of perspectives are offered. The RIRs do not per se discuss
operations, the discussion is over policies that are reflective of
real world operational experience.
perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to assert its
ownership over its own protocols, that problem is better addressed in
IETF than in ARIN.
It's not a matter of ownership but whether the engineering solution
is still germane to real world needs.
IPv6 (as I first understood it) did have a business model assumed -
that one ISP would be all that an enterprise customer would need,
hence "provider assigned" addressing would be the approach to
providing more addresses, and via route aggregation, with out over
taxing the routing system. Traffic engineering, price competition,
disaster recovery, etc., would all be something the ISP would do.
The trouble is that during the past decade a large set of customers
are no longer willing to rely on a single ISP for their service for
various reasons. This is why the "provider independent" policies
have been made in the RIRs - to remove the business model that was
buried in the original IPv6 operations concept.
Okay, maybe I'm stretching the point here. I am not sure why I am
bothering to post. I guess I've become disappointed in the amount of
disrespect displayed in this thread.
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
Think glocally. Act confused.
Ietf mailing list