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?]
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 BoTI'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 studiedWell, 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 fixedI'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, butIt's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided regionally.
the codification of the current approach as "IPng" in spite of objections
I'd rather eat cake than NAT. :-)