> From: Tony Li <tli(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
>> Without PI, the enterprises say no, and with PI, the ISP's say no.
>> Got it.
> I believe that a more constructive assessment is that enterprises are
> unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to renumber, and ISPs are
> unwilling to pay non-trivial costs to support a non-scalable routing
> subsystem.
Tony, your version is more diplomatic, and quite correct, but the bottom
line is exactly the pithy, blunt version I gave.
> From: Paul Vixie <paul(_at_)vix(_dot_)com>
> if i were the CIO of any of those companies, i'd say "PI or NAT,
> exclusively"
It's really unfortunate that we still have an architecture where these are
the only two choices to respond to the situation you have portrayed, with
lock-in (which I agree is not acceptable). However....
> From: "Michel Py"
<michel(_at_)arneill-py(_dot_)sacramento(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
> ID/LOC has been discussed for 11 years and canned several times.
Yes, unfortunately - see previous two comments.
> From: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric(_dot_)fleischman(_at_)boeing(_dot_)com>
> possible technical solutions to this problem are currently being
> considered in the RRG / RAM discussions?
It's unfortunate that only now are solutions to the Hobson's choice
portrayed in the first two comments being seriously explored. Alas, it
looks like the solution will involve a major kludge, in order to provide
the second namespace that wasn't there (and should have been, all along).
In other words, IPv6 is already obsolete, before it's even deployed.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf