On 04/14/06 at 2:17pm -0400, Noel Chiappa
<jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
> From: Kevin Loch <kloch(_at_)hotnic(_dot_)net>
> Nobody in that room would have supported a policy they actually
> believed would blow up the Internet.
Who was in the room, BTW? How many of those 60 were from ISP's?
Noel,
Jason had the chair ask how many folks in the room were in the Default
Free Zone, and 20 people raised their hands. So from that I conclude at
the very least that 14 of those 20 did not oppose the PI proposal. I
suspect a number of them, like myself, actually supported the proposal as
a good balance between the need for workable multihoming and the desire
not to pass a "PI for everyone" policy that would explode the routing
table.
Bear in mind that the number of IPv4 PI blocks ARIN has given out is
rather small, and there's little reason to think that will change in the
near term.
Also, does that group have any commitments from ISP's (particularly the
large global backbones) to carry these PI addresses? (I assume the group is
expecting that PI addresses will be supported by the routing, not by some
as-yet-undefined other mechanism.)
I suspect they will indeed be accepted. At least initially, all the
transit providers I know of will accept such routes from their customers,
and I suspect they will begin accepting them from their peers as well as
multihoming enterprises demand it.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf