[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

On 5-apr-05, at 14:09, Daniel Roesen wrote:

>> Our job is to make a sensible policy that allows the use of
>> IPv6 to scale smoothly so that it meets the needs of humankind
>> for the next generation or two. Let's not be so arrogant that
>> we try to solve all addressing problems forever. That is not
>> necessary.

> ACK. And our job is to design something desireable, not something that
> has serious shortcomings compared to IPv4 (no PI for endusers).

And that's exactly the problem. This forum is more or less a marketing 
forum, and as such it's the wrong place to decide on these issues, as 
these are ENGINEERING tradeoffs. There should be an engineering forum 
that sets upper and lower limits on what can happen in places such as 
this.

In addition, it makes no sense whatsoever to make these decisions for 
part of the network, as the results impact everyone around the world.

The IETF has worked long and hard on multihoming without PI. It would 
be superbly stupid to throw all of that away with the finish line in 
sight and forever increase the cost of routing just so lazy people can 
get away with hardcoding IPv6 addresses in their access lists.