[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering

>I read into this that you are afraid that the initial criteria are not
>strict enough.  As far as I can see, the criteria are pretty explicit,
>and verificable.

If you mean afraid of a large routing table, then the answer is no. From the
archives you might see that I say "who cares, it's the vendors problem".
Anyway, as I said in the email after the one you replied to; I don't think
there is anything special about DNS (it's just another protocol) so it would
be better to discuss general PI allocations instead of specific cases of PI
which is after my opinion a waste of time (but this discussion was not). 

>Please.  We have been through this part of the discussion half a year ago,
>and we've asked those that know (the DNS WG) and they tell us "we can't
>rely on EDNS0, and truncation is bad".  It would be very helpful if you
>could do us the favour and read up on old arguments in the archives.

It would be very helpful if you didn't assume I don't know what I am talking
about. 

>To repeat myself: it's not the AP WG's job to tell the DNS WG how DNS
>works.  We're making policy, (partly) based on the expertise of other
>working 
>groups.

Ok, since I am with the DNS WG maybe it would be okay anyway to mention
slightly off-topic but related material?

EDNS0 works, just like any other working protocol. The problem is deploying
it, also just like any other protocol - like IPv6.
Since there is no critical problem today with IPv4, or DNS, there will
always be problems deploying the next versions of it when the first people
screams "hey this is not working!!!!". 
We could wait for it to happen. We could use it as an excuse to find
temporary workarounds. We can even make special address policies for special
cases that would give us more time, but sooner or later it is going to
happen - because the protocol itself is not sufficient and that is your
axiom.

Please do give me comments, but I think I have finished discussing this
topic now. 


Joergen Hovland