[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

[this is getting far too pedantic and way off topic for address-policy-wg]

bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> 	i have problems w/ the term "public [I,i]nternet"  - could you
> 	please define it?

In such a way that 1) you'd be happy with the definition and 2) we're stay 
relaticely on-topic for address-policy-wg at ripe?  I doubt it.  Your ability 
to pick nits far exceeds the charter of this mailing list - and, indeed my 
patience for creating water tight definitions.

I'm aware of your position on "which [Ii]nternet are we talking about".

>> - do you want to base your bilateral communications and possibly your 
>> business on an something which is frankly unsupported as designed and 
>> could stop working at any stage if operator Q were to implement 
>> uncontroversial prefix filters?
> 
> 	are you suggesting that party Q is the only option for communications
> 	btwn parties R & S?

no, merely that allowing your money and livelihood to depend on something 
unsupported (as-designed) is not a wise move, imo.

> 	marked by whom?   (and wrt 3ffe:: space...  folks are still using it
> 	and so i still annouce it.  it remains useful for them. :)

Why not - if it makes you happy.  Incidentally, would you mind if I also 
announced 3ffe::/24 to my v6 upstreams?  Now that 3ffe space is deprecated 
(and let's not get into the "by whom" argument here), I'm sure you can't 
have any objections.  I could make 3ffe::/24 useful to my peers too, I'm 
sure.  What do you think?  After all, sharing is caring.

>> No argument there.  But we're talking about different things. So far, 
>> you're talking about connectivity between exactly two specific parties. 
>> I'm not.
> 
> 	so your talking about multicast?  last i checked, nearly all traffic
> 	was unicast; e.g. end to end, e.g. between exactly two specific parties.

no, i'm talking about unicast between R and [A-P][S-Z].  I.e. generic 
connectivity on the public ipv6 Internet (note calculated use of undefined 
term) between relatively arbitrary parties also on the same public Internet.

>> I was thinking more of X = time, Y = % of ipv6 space reachable from 
>> ${3ffe}, where 100% at a particular timepoint would be # of reachable 
>> prefixes from some place known to be relatively well connected (cue flames 
>> for fuzzy specification).  Given your reaction to the question, it sounds 
>> like you haven't done looked into this, which is a minor pity.
> 
> 	but that is the wrong question.  how in the world do you ensure reachability
> 	across thousands of ASNs, each of which is willing/able to set their own
> 	policies about prefix acceptance?

No idea.  Global dictatorship?

But policies can be defined which create a network of networks which 
generally interoperate and interconnect well, and where if you can't get 
connectivity from point A to point B, that might be considered enough of a 
problem for the relevant people to want to fix it.  That's enough for me.

>> bill's friend(tm)
> 
> 	thats a new one... :)  care to take out a partnership in "Bills Bait & Sushi"	... there are franchise ops available.

In a different world, perhaps.  It might appeal to me more if I were of 
the meat-eating inclination.  Do you have any other appealing franchise 
options?

Nick,
"you know what I mean"