[RRG] PI as a non-requirement

[RJ Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

(CAUTION:  Please read this very closely before having
an emotional meltdown, for the point of this note might
be too subtle to catch at first glance. :-)


- I really don't think that PI allocations are a requirement.

- PI allocations are one possible mechanism to meet a
  different requirement.

The underlying requirement is:

	The 'pain and cost of renumbering' when multiplied
 	by the likely frequency of renumbering needs to be
	tolerable.


PI space is one mechanism to get that pain and cost down to
levels acceptable to many sites, but it might not be the only
way to get pain and cost down to those levels.  We ought not
be closing the door on alternative approaches.  Instead, we
ought to be encouraging folks to study and investigate ideas
that might lead to other alternative approaches.


Indeed, I can imagine that some of those alternatives might be
*lower* cost and *lower* pain than PI space -- particularly
given the annual "address leasing" costs associated with
getting PI space from a registry.[1]


So PI is one possible mechanism, and maybe the only one that
some folks can imagine.


However, the *requirement* is to have a sufficiently low
cost and pain associated with renumbering at whatever
renumbering frequency is needed.

Cheers,

Ran
rja@extremenetworks.com

[1] There is an opportunity for the IPv6 community to step
up to the batter's box here.  So far, IPv6 renumbering,
particularly for routers within a given site, can be pretty
painful.  Renumbering for hosts is a whole lot less painful
than in IPv4, given both DHCP and Stateless Autoconfiguration.


--
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