[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

On 14-apr-2006, at 12:42, Per Heldal wrote:


An alternative would be to give the prefixes out based on geography,
so there is at least a chance that we get to aggregate them
geographically in the future. But despite the fact that doing this is
entirely risk-free (geo PI without geo aggregation is no worse than
regular PI) people want proof that it works first, while at the same
for deploying regular PI the burden of proof is reversed so it's
allowed now despite very good indications (but not hard proof) that
it will be problematic in the future.



Geo-aggregation doesn't work in a competitive market. It would require
new routing-technology to do so, and thus fall in the same category as
shim6.
Well obviously you don't know what you're talking about (not apologizing for my crankiness, btw) or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
But even if geo aggregation requires new routing technology, which is not the case, then we should be giving out geo PI prefixes rather than regular PI prefixes because by the time the "required" new routing technology becomes available, it can be deployed on existing prefixes rather than only on new ones. 


The challenge for the technical community is to create better
technology.
The challenge for the community as a whole is to accept limitations rather than ignore them and hope the problems that are created by behaving that way will magically disappear.
The IETF been talking about scalable routing = scalable multihoming for at least a decade and it's entirely clear that there is no pain- free solution that allows all the current benefits without incurring any of the bad side effects. Ignore this lesson at your peril. 


IPv6 is really just repeating the same mistake with longer addresses.
I didn't say it's a perfect solution, but we're not living in a perfect 
world.
Oh, my mistake. Obviously because the world is imperfect it's ok to do things we know are dumb beforehand. 


If we're unable to come up with a product the market wants we
have to accept that the market makes the most of what it's got
regardless of what we may think about it.


Yeah, ain't capitalism grand. To quote 10cc:

To do the Wall Street Shuffle
Let your money hustle
Bet you'd sell your mother
You can buy another


PS! I belive the probability of something entirely new replacing
IPv<anything> is much greater than the probability of the internet
falling apart due to its growth.
Say hi to the easter bunny if you run into it this weekend, by the way. Belief has no place in engineering. But it doesn't matter one way or the other, as I'm sure the ARIN constituents will reject it if it's really this great.