> From: Scott Leibrand <sleibrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> the desire not to pass a "PI for everyone" policy that would explode
> the routing table.
Interesting that you should mention that, because there's zero technical
differentiation between "PI space" and "portable addresses". So I have to
wonder if this initiative will raise the pressure from users for portable
addresses.
PS: > From: Kevin Loch <kloch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I find this comment extremely offensive. ... Your implication that the
> participants were either uninformed or diddn't care about the
> consequences is completely off base.
There's a certain deep irony here, because PI-addresses have been considered
at length in the IETF in at least two different WG's - CIDR-D and Multi-6.
Both rejected them after extensive discussion.
Nevertheless, a policy-making body has seen fit to ignore that, and make an
engineering decision to deploy PI-space. It's hard to read that decision any
other way than to have it imply that the decisions in those WG's were
technically uninformed.
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf