RE: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>     > From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> 
>     > But what they mainly want, as far as I can see is independence
> 
> If people wanted a namespace that was independent of topology, they should
> have put one into the architecture when it was first designed.
> 
> Routing-names in a global-scale network will *always* depend on network
> location.
> 
> The only namespace IPv6 has (other than DNS names) are addresses, which are
> routing-names.
> 
> If an architecture without a namespace which is independent of topology in
> unacceptable, then people have to either i) radically modify IPv6, or ii)
> junk it.
> 
> Is a namespace with independence really absolutely required? If so, saying
> tbat is equivalent to saying you have to either radically modify IPv6 (so
> it supports that), or junk it (since it doesn't).

In the long term, i'm rather convinced that an architectural change will 
be required.  I can't see other scalable alternatives.  

But it's not all-or-nothing.  Current common practises require
independence already -- at "largish ISP" level.  This is deemed
acceptable, in contrast to late aggregatable global unicast addressing
(RFC2374) with hard limits.  So, independence is OK to some degree.. but
we must not get that degree get too far unless we have measures to provide
for it.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings