Re: [RRG] Consensus? End-user networks need their own portable address space

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-05-26 07:56, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |> Can we form rough consensus on this?
> |>
> |> Short version:
> |>
> |>  End-user networks need their own portable address space.
> |
> |s/End/Some end/
> |
> |To be pedantic about it, there will be for our lifetimes and beyond  
> |enduser networks
> |happy to accept whatever solution their ISP provides, as long as it  
> |works.
> |But, of the ones that want it, some will want it badly enough they  
> |will get it
> |one way or the other.
> |
> |Other than that, +1 from me.
> 
> 
> I would say that end some end-user networks _want_ their own portable
> address space.  
> 
> If we provide solutions that give end-users the functionality without that
> particular mechanism, I can't rationally say that there is a _need_.

Exactly. IPv6 was designed to remove the _need_, although there's no
doubt that most IT departments around the world haven't understood
this. Unfortunately IPv4 prefix assignments, both pre-CIDR and since
the registries folded by starting to make PI assignments, have led to
established practice that IPv4 prefixes are viewed as property. It's
too late to change that for IPv4, but we shouldn't confuse that
contingent fact with architecture.

   Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg