[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive

> This is the standard argument, but only half-true.  For serious internet
> connections, you usually need to move your leased-line connection,

This can be solved by having physical IXes. This is 
not the same as existing logical IXes because in a
physical IX, businesses will connect their circuits
to the IX and then cross-connect to an ISP. There is
no peering here, just cross-connect cables. To provide
separacy, you need two or more physical IXes in 
a city. 

Such things do not exist today because it is not common
for businesses to have PI space. This means that currently
they are not able to switch providers quickly so there is
no demand for a physical IX. 

Once geo-topo addressing is implemented, I expect that
the peering exchanges will expand their business into offering
this type of physical exchange service.

> A poorly planned network, with everything hardcoded everywhere (up to
> applications that access IP addresses hard-coded in the source) is not
> a proper excuse to burden everbody else's routers.

Maybe that's why people who do hardcode addresses for
security reasons, are building private internetworks.
Of course, these people have the same right to PI addresses
as everybody else. It doesn't matter whether you are on the
public Internet or a private internet.

> I accept that PI for BGP multihoming purposes is - today - one of the 
more
> reasonable ways to achieve the goal (ISP independence and resilience), 
but
> I still hope that we won't ever see the "let's get PI once, and never 
have 
> to renumber again!" land rush.

You do realize that in IPv6 there is enough address space
to supply such a "land rush" in an orderly manner so that 
everyone gets their unique PI block?

--Michael Dillon