Thus spake "Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen(_at_)sprunk(_dot_)org>
> _understand_ why PI is necessary, however much they dislike and/or
fear
> it.
Most (all?) of us understand and accept that multi-homing, vendor
independence, etc are very desirable *capability* goals. However, whether
PI
is the right *particular engineering mechanism* to reach those goals
remains
questionable.
You can question it, of course. I question it as well.
However, it is the only solution available today that the operational folks
consider viable. The IETF promised something different and has yet to
deliver, so PI was passed and deployed. If the IETF does eventually deliver
something viable, the RIRs will consider deprecating PI.
Keep in mind that, for any solution that requires host changes, "deliver"
includes being implemented and on by default in Windows. The IPv6 core
protocol has only recently achieved this after a decade of waiting, and many
other pieces still aren't available (firewalls, load balancers, consumer CPE
boxes, management apps, etc). Those who propose shim6 or similar solutions
need to expect it'll take another decade after the ink is dry for their
solutions to be considered viable -- if ever. Those running networks have
to do _something_ in the meantime, however, and the fact that what is
available offends someone's sense of architectural purity is completely
irrelevant. See also: NAT.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf