Kevin Loch wrote:
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
Whatever. This is all quite silly. SHIM6 is still speculative in
nature and for the operational community to attempt to quash it is an
exceedingly ridiculous waste of their time. But heck, at least its
their time and not my time. As has been shown many times, the Internet
and capitalist economics tend to use the most efficient routes over
time. The nice thing about the current SHIM6 design is that it's
backward compatible with the rest of the world, so if some SPs don't
like SHIM6 and it turns out to work for enterprises and consumers, tough
noogies. Otherwise, tough noogies to those who do use it when it
doesn't work.
As to allocating out PI address space, be my guest. There would be no
better way for the operational community to assure that they pay for
VERY high end routers for the foreseeable future, and that will line my
and every other CSCO and JNPR shareholders' pockets for a time while
putting out of business smaller ISPs who can't afford such specialized
high end gear (we generally call those people NANOG attendees). And if
this decision was disconnected from those people then clearly something
is wrong with the RIR governance model (I don't think this is true - I
think the RIRs generally understand this problem).
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf