Noel Chiappa wrote:
...
> 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...
Ideas never die; some are just ahead of their time. ;)
> 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
it.
I didn't say that. Note they did not specify exactly how they were going to
do it, just that it would be done. If the technical group has approaches
that are better than first-come from a swamp-block, now is the time to get
them on the table. They have called the bluff of the PA-only tantrum and
will do random assignments if nothing better emerges.
> 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.
I happen to agree with you here, which is why I have been advocating a
particular geo approach that can work with existing BGP and be scaled up and
down as far as necessary to contain the routes. Unfortunately to date, the
IESG has not understood the necessity to have a working group to refine a
globally acceptable approach.
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".
The existence of a "default-free-zone" was long ago relegated to myth
status. There are different views of what this mythical entity contains, so
by definition there is no single zone. Rather than fight to maintain an ego
driven myth, we should be accepting reality and organizing structure in what
appears where.
> 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
constraints" stuff...
They never like it because it restrains their freedom. At the same time the
"carrier" side of the house has learned to deal with it in the PSTN context,
so the "ISP" side will be getting an education in dealing with
customer/governmental requirements.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf