[89056] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Mar 1 17:59:05 2006
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:58:25 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>,
David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <1141233486.24460.36.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==========FA1C461686008EFC2A3C==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
> Please don't mix up addressing and routing. "PI addressing" as you
> mention is addressing. SHIM6 will become a routing trick.
>
I think that is overly pessimistic. I would say that SHIM6 _MAY_
become a routing trick, but, so far, SHIM6 is a still-born piece
of overly complicated vaporware of minimal operational value, if any.
Personally, I think a better solution is to stop overloading IDR
meaning onto IP addresses and use ASNs for IDR and prefixes for
intradomain routing only.
> Greets,
> Jeroen
>
> (who simply would like a policy where endsites that want it could
> request a /48 or /40 depending on requirements from a dedicated block
> which one day might be used for identity purposes and not pop up in the
> bgp tables or whatever we have then anymore....)
>
I would, for one. Policy proposal 2005-1 (I am the author) comes reasonably
close to that. It will be discussed at the ARIN policy meeting in
Montreal in April.
Owen
--
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========FA1C461686008EFC2A3C==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEBicVn5zKWQ/iqj0RAmSbAKCT++7Mki29EzLR/8dccdkelyutwQCfUUPg
fojwt7dz7dclnFawVY9n96c=
=xijf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========FA1C461686008EFC2A3C==========--
