On 30-aug-2007, at 15:11, Thomas Narten wrote:
Case in point is provider independent address space for IPv6. For a
decade, this wasn't possible because the IETF was first studying, and
after a _lot_ of effort to get things rolling, working on, mechanisms
to provide multihoming benefits without injecting a prefix into the
global routing table for each multihomed site. Then, with something
workable within reach but not quite finished, ARIN saw fit to allow
PI for IPv6 anyway, with potentially very harmful long-term results.
This is one view of what happened. My take is not so simplistic.
Not sure how the above is simplistic, but please inform us about your
take.
There was overwhelming support for the
PI to end sites proposal.
Right. Most of that was from people who benefit directly from that,
and then a lot of others who I thought knew better jumped on the
bandwagon, I believe thinking it would help IPv6 deployment. It
didn't, of course. ARIN has given out 76 /48s that aren't "micro
allocations" so I assume those are PI blocks. But:
+---------+----------+
| afrinic | 37 |
| apnic | 503 |
| arin | 429 |
| lacnic | 83 |
| ripencc | 893 |
+---------+----------+
The fact that there was so much support for this shows that there was
something broken in the decision making process somewhere.
I find your characterization of the ARIN AC as only "adminstratively
capable" to be inaccurate and unhelpful.
I would love to be helpful here but I haven't figured out how thusfar.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf