Paul Vixie wrote:
http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which
i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten
and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them
supports the proposal). in fact, nobody in the ietf intelligensia
supports the proposal. the showstopped is that this appears to many as
an end-run around PI, and the fear is that there's no way to prevent it
from all getting routed anyway. while that's not an unreasonable fear,
i'm alone in considering it a manageable risk.
I'm afraid I'll have to leave you alone there. [RIR-PI] makes [ULA-GLOBAL-00]
somehow palatable, but not enough. In a nutshell, your argument is that since
[RIR-PI] has been adopted, there is little risk that [ULA-GLOBAL-00]
degenerates into free-for-all PI.
That's a valid point, but IMHO the problem is that [RIR-PI] is not good enough
in too many eyes; in other words there still are many remaining temptations to
abuse [ULA-GLOBAL-00].
so while i harken to your concern that "IPv6 will never fly",
i think that the reasons for it are much larger than whatever
part you think ARIN could do differently.
Agree.
Michel Py wrote:
The real world would probably go for IPv6 NAT instead, but
the IETF is deadlocked; instead of choosing between the
lesser of two evils and sacrifice one of the "features",
they want to have the cake and eat it too.
Paul Vixie wrote:
ietf said don't do nat in v4. the market said screw you. The
market won, and ietf ended up having to add nat support into
various protocols, and started having nat oriented working
groups, and so on. i expect the same with nat v6.
I agree, but my point was that the market might prefer double-v4NAT to IPv6
NAT. The situation is quite different: IPv4 NAT solved most of the renumbering
issue. IPv6 NAT does not bring anything to the table that IPv4 NAT does not
already have. In other words: if you want NAT, no point upgrading to IPv6.
i have more confidence in the ability of router vendors to bend moore's
law and in backbone architects and routing protocol architects to bend
graph theory, than i have for example in diesel-from-algae as a way to
solve the world's carbon problem. so i'm not nec'ily hopeful, but i'm
more hopeless about other things than i am about a 2M-route DFZ.
Agree too, but as you said above the reasons are much larger. In other words,
even if vendors promised a 10M DFZ capable routers and the RIRs gave PI to
anybody who asks for it, we would still be nowhere near take off.
Roger Jørgensen wrote:
are they still refusing to put it into the queue or do anything? Even
after several month? Well let really hope that will change now when/if
IPv6-wg change the name to 6man and we can start working again!
A few months are very little time in IETF time!
Michel.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf