RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>

    >> As long as the registries continue to hand out PI space, and as long
    >> as the ISP's continue to accept and advertise them

    > part of our recommendation will likely be to cease the current practice
    > of disseminating PI addresses ... we can phase out PI.

That's just not going to be accepted, IMO. The users leaned on the RIRs to do
PI, and any attempt to get rid of PI would take even more ooomph than
stopping them, and there clearly wasn't enough for that.

So, it's really up to the ISPs - the customers (as previously pointed out)
will have no interest in any solution that costs them anything. As far as I
can see, the ISPs have four choices:

- a) stop accepting/advertising PI addresses
- b) charge for accepting/advertising PI addresses
- c) deploy some sort of jack-up system outside the customer-owned/managed
	part of the network
- d) buy stock in Cisco/Juniper/etc so that they'll get at least some return
	on the large checks they are going to have to write to them

a) is a non-starter, since they won't say no to a customer; and b) (as
someone, I think it was you, noted) has been propounded for years with no
takeup. That leaves c) and d).

As for c), I have heard that most ISP's aren't at all interested in one of
the more fully-worked jack-up proposals (although that may change down the
road), so I'm wondering if that's really viable.

There are, I expect, some ISPs for whom d) is an option (and, in fact, some
might prefer it, hoping that the costs involved will drive some of their
competitors out of business), but can we go that way? (Particularly since,
AFAICT, in v6 the cutoff organization size for getting a PI block is smaller,
which means that if v6 catches on, v6 routing tables will have even more
entries than v4.)

Am I missing something? (I'm not trying to rain on everyone here, just trying
to be realistic and hard-nosed - the ~15 year history of IPv6 shows us what
happens when we're not sufficiently realistic and hard-nosed.)


    > From: "Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>

    > can we please stop saying 'address' unless we truly _mean_ a classical
    > address, with both identifier and location semantics?

I agree with you, but alas I'm rather dubious that it's going to happen -
experience shows that people are very resistant to changing the meaning
bindings in their heads. About all one can do is stop using the term
'address', and substitute other terms.

	Noel

--
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