[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:03:20AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> Who are you to decide who is too small to be allowed independence?
> >> someone with routers which have to carry all those prefixes
> > You mean the very small tier 1 club? All others can default and don't
> > _have_ to carry all those prefixes.
> 
> no, that's not what i mean and you know it.  the number of t1s is
> a very tiny percentage of those carrying full routing.  you may
> wish it otherwise.  i may wish it otherwise.  but until there is
> solid technology to support better routing, that's life.  get used
> to it.

You conveniently ignore the fact that all those others don't HAVE to
carry all those prefixes. Which I even stated in the quoted paragraph.

> > What's _your_ solution to this problem _now_ in IPv6?
> 
> stop deployment, which is negligible anyway, and fix the technology.

You're welcome to find 42. Others tried hard, unsuccessfully.

> and fixing is not applying endless half-assed hacks that don't
> actually do the job.

Which job? For how long?

> we're gonna live with this stuff for a very long time.  it should
> be very far more solid design than it is.  if we're patching now,
> what will be the kludge level 20 years from now?

No idea. What will be problems in 20 years from now? You claim you
can find the technology which won't impose problems on us for the next
20 years to come?


Regards,
Daniel

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