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

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:17:21PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >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.

Name the engineering problems of end-user PI. (Un)fortunately nobody
was yet able to show convincing prove that there IS a problem. Stop
FUDding.

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

Agreed.

> 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.

IETF is nowhere near any solution. They are as far away from it as they
can be. Will probably take another few years to finally realize that.

There is no REAL multihoming without PI yet. And the IETF recently
narrowed down the road they want to take (solution space) that
guarrantees that the result won't fit people's needs. The multi6=>shim6
transition was (for me and quite a few others) the "end of all hope".

Don't waste time and energy waiting for shim6. The outcome won't fly.

A sensible "separated locator and idenfication" approach would need a
complete revamp of the operating model and (and that's the big thing)
operating systems L3/L4 stacks. Won't happen, so shim6 will be a crude
hack, attacking only part of the requirement space.


Regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0