-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-11-20, at 05.13, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > This does not mean that you are bound to a single number, the same you > are not bound to a single mobile. Let not think "the users should do > it the way I think", but "I am to permit the users to do it the way I > never thought they would do it", because it is generally the way these > people behave .... > > Does this respond your remark? No, I made a poor attempt at being sarcastic. John seems to have gotten my point and explained it well. > Everyone agrees that we need more addresses; so everything seems fine. > Except that it does not catch. Why ? I think Brian is right when he says we don't know this yet. > I think it does not catch, because this is the old IPv4 model, that it > still relies on ISPs and that if addresses are longer they still are > far too short. Because they are managed by RIRs who have no societal > and no political power. But mainly because we consider the wrong > product: no one is interested in the Version 6 of the IP protocol. > There are a lot of people interested in the management and political > capacity to manage /128 long addresses. > > The real product is the addressing plan. And the reasons why no one is > excited are that: > > - these addresses are managed "a la IPv4", as a unique Vint > Cerf's/ICANN numbering area. This is what they want to correct with > ITU. I submit there is no conflict. IPv6 has 6 different numbering > plans. Let say that 001 is for the US Vint's legacy and 011 for > international. That Vint can manage the 001 area and the ITU the 011 > area. This is status quo. Actually not. Currently there is (at least in perception) a global addressing policy. This means that a change in policy that would affect the organizations carrying the burden of the changes (providers) is transparent to them, and they and anyone else can influence it. In your world this does not hold so it's not status quo. > - now, the way ITU wants to manage the international digital address > numbering plan is in using DCC (or the like). (DCC is data country > code). The same as there are ccTLDs in naming. So Frank has no problem > for his SOPAC islands. They are entitled as many addresses as others. > Does that change anything for the RIRs and the routing? No, this is > simple address management. The problem with the SOPAC islands is artificial and AFAIK in the process of being solved. The DCC plan is naive at best, and already implemented in several countries by he use of NIRs. So if a country feels this is a real need, it is already done in the current system. > - the way the countries will manage their numbering space is up to > them. But if I refer to the telephone solutions, my guess is that many > will differentiate routing and addressing in a very simple way (and > this is certainly what the ART (French FCC) wants to hear about - > because this is what users want : IP addresses are to be independent > from the ISP). This means that they will allocate national IDs that > you will be able to use as a NetworkID or as a UserID. And multinationals? Routing? This has been discussed at great length several times in several forums. What if I as an end-user would get a better deal if I locked my self in to a specific provider with their addresses? That is my right! > And you will probably get the UserID for free at birth or creation, > probably additional ones on a small fee and you will pay for the > routing to your NetworkID. ....and someone hacks that nice system and yoou have rendered all the userIDs insecure and not trustworthy. I still think the ITU proposal is non-workable and is yet a variation of (albeit a poor one) geographical addressing. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQZ9236arNKXTPFCVEQItDwCg8rE4VFTabqkqVExcRYwCW0tPbRoAnj3C 4AqJ4qv8yfeS6t3g0vi147ch =8cX2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf