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: Mon Nov 22 04:11:33 2004 
On 21-nov-04, at 20:05, Paul Vixie wrote:


(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.





actually, i'm just trying to keep my role as member-elect of arin's BoT

separate from my role as an internet citizen. as it turns out, arin's

BoT does not have a policy formation role. when this issue comes up in

PPML or the AC, i'll speak up, but i'll be explicitly hatless when i
do.



I've never been a great believer in hat switching. Even if it is
possible to fully separate different roles internally, things get
blurry in the perception of others. In your case "we made him a member
of the ARIN board of trustees so it would be stupid not to listen to
him".




you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role.



Please explain them then.




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





i never rejected all possibilities, just the ones i've personally
studied

so far.



Well, then the question is: how up to date are you with regard to the
IETF multi6 wg and the discussions about locator/identifier separation
in general?




i'm also on record as saying that the easiest time to have fixed

this was before the current IPng approach was annointed; now we're
playing

catchup. even you in your multi6 role ought to be wishing that more
had

been done before "IPv6" was cast in stone.



I'm not sure what part of IPv6 you would like to have seen different.
Sure, there were some mistakes such as the whole ip6.int / ip6.arpa
debacle, the site local thing that got this discussion started and last
but not least the DNS resolver discovery issue, but what exactly should
have been done differently in the area of routing?




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.





somehow i don't think that's going to sway wal-mart's thinking at all,
but

i do look forward to a lively debate next time this comes up on PPML.



It's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided
regionally.




the codification of the current approach as "IPng" in spite of
objections

raised at that time amounted to a recommendation of "let them eat NAT."


I'd rather eat cake than NAT.  :-)