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

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2008-06-19 17:18, Lixia Zhang wrote:
>> someone explained to me privately that Robin's definition of "portable"
>> is equivalent to PI prefixes.
>>
>> To me a PI prefix has 2 separable meanings: globally uniqueness, and
>> portability.
>
> In any case, it seems to be a solution, not a requirement.

Brian,

Yes and no.

The requirement is that end users (meaning folks who operate servers
in this case) be able to  change service providers:

1. Without a major overall effort, and
2. Without requiring any changes outside of the end user's
administrative control.

In the past two decades, NO ONE has demonstrated a mechanism for
meeting these two requirements that has proven out in practice EXCEPT
for assigning PI addresses to the end user. Quite the contrary: the
past decade has shown a dramatic increase in strangers filtering data
by source IP address, busting the heck out of requirement 2.

Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to escalate the solution
(PI addresses) to requirement status. If at some point in the future
someone demonstrates an workable architecture which unequivocally
meets the original two requirements, we can just as easily reverse the
escalation. Given the history, the onus should be entirely on the
newcomer to demonstrate that they really have an in-practice workable
solution that doesn't require PI.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
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