Kevin Loch wrote: > In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has > flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement > for PI. Whatever. This is all quite silly. SHIM6 is still speculative in nature and for the operational community to attempt to quash it is an exceedingly ridiculous waste of their time. But heck, at least its their time and not my time. As has been shown many times, the Internet and capitalist economics tend to use the most efficient routes over time. The nice thing about the current SHIM6 design is that it's backward compatible with the rest of the world, so if some SPs don't like SHIM6 and it turns out to work for enterprises and consumers, tough noogies. Otherwise, tough noogies to those who do use it when it doesn't work. As to allocating out PI address space, be my guest. There would be no better way for the operational community to assure that they pay for VERY high end routers for the foreseeable future, and that will line my and every other CSCO and JNPR shareholders' pockets for a time while putting out of business smaller ISPs who can't afford such specialized high end gear (we generally call those people NANOG attendees). And if this decision was disconnected from those people then clearly something is wrong with the RIR governance model (I don't think this is true - I think the RIRs generally understand this problem). Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf