Re: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

[Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>]

Yes, I think that if we were to pursue 4+16 it would exactly cause
us to have two namespaces containing different parts of the locator.
I did say :-(.  (Of course, it's exactly what we have today with NAT.)

   Brian

"J. Noel Chiappa" wrote:
> 
>     > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
> 
>     >> [4+16] would have the disadvantage that you'd be limited to a 32-bit
>     >> locator, something that's already causing us grief.
> 
>     > 4 billion wide-area locators doesn't seem to be too bad in itself.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't follow what you meant by "wide-area locators". Did you mean
> that (contrary to my express guidance immediately below) these 32 bits would
> only hold the "high order" part of the location? Or did you mean that 32
> bits of locator would be enough?
> 
>     >> (And don't even *think* about moving some of the "local" topology
>     >> information into the IPv6 addresses, leaving only the "global" stuff
>     >> in the IPv4 header. Long architectural rant about why you don't
>     >> spread functionality across two namespaces left out, as an exercise
>     >> to the reader.)
> 
>     > Ah, but pragmatic rant about how it's likely to happen anyway also
>     > left out :-(
> 
> Well, at least you added a ":-(", which I take to mean that you realize it's
> a bad idea - so if that's true, please don't take what follows as directed
> at you.
> 
> One of my favourite quotations is from Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's
> Almanac", and it goes:
> 
>         EXPERIENCE IS A DEAR MASTER, BUT FOOLS WILL LEARN AT NO OTHER.
> 
> So what exactly do you call someone who has the painful experience, and
> *still* refuses to learn? Clearly, something even lower than a fool.
> 
> The IPv6 community got into the corner it's in now because it took the path
> of least technical resistance: IPv6 looks a lot like IPv4 because we "know"
> that IPv4 "works". Well, guess what, IPv4 *doesn't* work, and IPng needed to
> look really different, and those of us who tried to tell the rest of the
> IETF that didn't get very far - although I think we gave it a pretty good
> try.
> 
> So if the IPv6 community again takes the path of least technical resistance,
> having not learned the first time around that that's really not the answer,
> G-d help you all.
> 
>         Noel