Did CIDR teach us nothing? was: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)

On 23-mei-2007, at 2:50, Sascha Lenz wrote:

> Why do we concentrate on "multihoming" now as a requirement for PI- 
> addresses? That's not what "Provider Independent" means to me, even  
> if this is the most likely reason for such a request.

> What about those who just want a portable block, no renumbering?

Why am I even bothering!?

The IETF spent 5 years getting scalable multihoming off the ground.  
Then the operator community / RIR policy makers decided shim6 wasn't  
good enough before it was even finished and we need PI in IPv6 for  
multihoming just like in IPv4. That was a bad decision at the wrong  
time and we'll live to regret it, but it won't kill the IPv6 internet  
in the immediate future.

But now we should go back to the good old days before the invention  
of CIDR where everyone gets a portable address block, no questions  
asked? Unlike IPv6 PI for multihoming this will be enough to kill  
IPv6 really fast if it comes into wide use, just like it almost  
killed IPv4 in the early 1990s.