[75711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Sun Nov 21 13:54:16 2004
In-Reply-To: <g3is80jlld.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:53:44 +0100
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On 20-nov-04, at 21:45, Paul Vixie wrote:
> for all these reasons, large or multihoming endsystems will need V6
> PI allocations and at some point the RIRs are going to have to
> define/allow
> this.
I find your attitude in this regard disturbing, especially as:
> (note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of arin's
> board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.)
You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important
that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the public good.
While you're high and dry, the hoi polloi can renumber while at the
same time suffering increased ISP costs because of the unnecessarily
high hardware costs created by all those PI prefixes. In other words,
today's equivalent of "let them eat cake".
It also shows contempt for the IETF, as you reject all possible
alternatives to PI out of hand.
> there is no possibility that any enterprise where i am responsible
> for planning or design will ever run PA addresses out to the desktop
> -- it
> makes multihoming impossible, which would leave me at the mercy of a
> single
> provider's uptime, and a single provider's pricing.
Work is underway to remedy this. However, if the RIRs decide to open up
PI in IPv6, people will take the quick fix and there won't be any push
to get the (admittedly) more complex but more scalable solutions to
these problems off the ground.
