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?]
> > you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role. > > Please explain them then. briefly, because i consider myself off-topic and sue probably does also. the problem statement answered by the ipngwg was wrong. they thought they were supposed to "solve the shortage of address space problem", but that wasn't the most serious problem then (and is not now). the right problem statement would be to "solve the shortage of PORTABLE address space problem". note the insertion of the word "portable" before "address space". the big problem in 1992 and the big problem now is that a wal-mart corporate desktop will either have an ambigious address (behind a NAT), or a hard-to-renumber isp-price-locked address (provider assigned), or a takes-a-slot-in-the-global routing-table address (provider independent). three strikes and you're out! none of those three things is acceptable, not even as a compromise. i have not looked in on the multi6 wg this year. my bad. perhaps you've come up with a fourth alternative, or a way of softening one of the three existing alternatives to the point where its benefits outweigh its costs. but everything i've actually looked at either resolves the cost/benefit in favour of some minority of which neither isc nor wal-mart is a part, or which would have been equally applicable to ipv4 such that all we needed was the gimmick itself, not 128-bit addresses, if only we'd been willing to pay this much pain back before ipngwg's work was complete. ipng needed rapid renumbering, including renumbering tcp endpoints realtime and including multihoming where you can add and delete PA interface addresses whe way commercial RAID vendors add and delete disk drives. the people in putative "charge" of this said either (a) they didn't agree, (b) they didn't understand, or (c) they didn't have time to add more requirements. now it's 2004 and lo and behold, the problems of 1992 are still with us, but now we have better terminology to describe them. you can be locked into a provider's pricing and service quality; or you can run NAT; or you can find a way to get your own slot in the global routing table. we have the same shortage of portable addresses now that we had in 1992, even though we have increased the overall supply of address space by a factor of 2**96. if multi6 offers a fourth alternative, it would probably also have worked with ipv4, in which case why did we spend years working on 128-bit addressing? i strongly believe that the isp community who pays ARIN's bills will decide that the best way to grow the industry is to let folks like ford and wal-mart have their own /32's, and that there will be a spectrum of r e n u m b e r i n g d i f f i c u l t y easy--------------------------moderate------------------------impossible with PA+NAT on the left (home dsl, cable); wal-mart and ford on the right with endsystem PI, and folks like isc in the middle, doing some kind of multi6 thing, whose costs while high will be lower than the renumbering penalty. since the arin BoT has no policy formation role, i'm expecting to be able to voice an opinion that weighs exactly as much as everybody else's, and to vote ultimately on whatever the policy formation function comes up with. so there. those are my views. aren't you glad you asked? > It's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided regionally. yes. i understand that the acid rain people, the ozone layer people, the ice cap people, the whale people, and the ocean oxygen level people, all have that same complaint. human nature on a grand scale isn't always pretty.