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

On 5-apr-05, at 14:27, Daniel Roesen wrote:

>> 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.

The problem is that PI isn't scalable. This is of course fine if you 
don't feel like scaling, but putting non-scalable aspects in technology 
that is supposed to be around for decades to come is a very dangerous 
and expensive game.

> IETF is nowhere near any solution. They are as far away from it as they
> can be.

Believe me, they could have been much farther away from a solution.  :-)

> 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".

Why?

> 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.

Shim6 will deliver 80% of the functionality of a loc/id solution with 
20% of the effort. There are plenty of hooks to attach the remaining 
functionality later, but making small steps first makes much more 
sense.