Re: comments on draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt

[Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>]

On Wednesday, Feb 5, 2003, at 11:39 Canada/Eastern, Iljitsch van 
Beijnum wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, J. Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
> > > there is only one other objective way of pre-allocating address 
> > > space:
> > > on geography.
> > Pre-allocating routing-names in a global-scale network without 
> > controlled
> > connectivity is an idea so broken I won't even bother to say anything 
> > more
> > about it.
> Without pre-allocation there can't be any successful aggregation. We 
> can
> see this in IPv4 today: the RIRs (pre-) allocate blocks that are too
> small to ISPs so these ISPs end up with lots of relatively small 
> blocks.
Organisations move, merge and split apart. Physical and layer-2 
networks can change radically with no impact on layer 3. There are 
operators today selling wide-area layer-2 transport services in which 
single subnets span continents. Layer-3 topologies (both intra-AS and 
inter-AS) change on a daily basis.

Given such a turbulent soup of connectedness, what criteria for 
pre-allocation of routing names stands a chance of not being 
out-of-date as soon as it is published?

[There was no pre-allocation with IPv4, and there is certainly *some* 
successful aggregation today, despite what you say, and even given the 
allocation issues you mention.]


Joe