Re: [RRG] Consensus? 4 points so we can make progress

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

On 2008-05-30 09:31, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 5/28/08 6:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
>>> 3 - The solution must provide portable address space for
>>>     end-user networks without impacting the scaling of the
>>>     current BGP routing system.  (The map-encap schemes do this.)
>>
>> I don't agree. The desire for "portable" prefixes is an artefact of
>> IPv4 experience. Let me reformulate.
>>
>>      The solution must allow the option of provider-independent
>>      address space and the option of multiple provider-dependent
>>      address spaces for end-user networks...
> 
> It doesn't even need to do that.  It should allow multihoming and easy
> migration from one point in the topology to another.  How it does that
> is an open question.

Please add to that: must allow stable network management (including
asset databases, monitoring and diagnostic systems, etc.). While I
dislike the phrase "portable address space", I think that argues
strongly for stable (i.e. PI) space as an operational matter, but in
an IPv6 world, that does *not* mean it's the only address space in
use. It's running code to use different IPv6 prefixes for on-site
and off-site traffic. I'm just concerned that we don't allow the
shortage of IPv4 prefixes to constrain our thinking about IPv6.

    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