North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Sun Nov 21 13:54:51 2004 
On 20-nov-04, at 21:45, Paul Vixie wrote:
for all these reasons, large or multihoming endsystems will need V6
PI allocations and at some point the RIRs are going to have to define/allow
this.
I find your attitude in this regard disturbing, especially as:


(note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of arin's
board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.)
You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the public good. While you're high and dry, the hoi polloi can renumber while at the same time suffering increased ISP costs because of the unnecessarily high hardware costs created by all those PI prefixes. In other words, today's equivalent of "let them eat cake".

It also shows contempt for the IETF, as you reject all possible alternatives to PI out of hand.

there is no possibility that any enterprise where i am responsible
for planning or design will ever run PA addresses out to the desktop -- it
makes multihoming impossible, which would leave me at the mercy of a single
provider's uptime, and a single provider's pricing.
Work is underway to remedy this. However, if the RIRs decide to open up PI in IPv6, people will take the quick fix and there won't be any push to get the (admittedly) more complex but more scalable solutions to these problems off the ground.