Noel Chiappa wrote: > ... > > it is manageable to deal with porting between providers within a > city, > > but not between cities > > Metro addressing! All those old classics are making a comeback... Ideas never die; some are just ahead of their time. ;) > > > > those groups couldn't see the forest for the trees. They were > > absolutely technically informed, but completely unwilling to listen > to > > the big picture political reality. > > And the current group has a superior grasp of the all-around picture? Ah, > got > it. I didn't say that. Note they did not specify exactly how they were going to do it, just that it would be done. If the technical group has approaches that are better than first-come from a swamp-block, now is the time to get them on the table. They have called the bluff of the PA-only tantrum and will do random assignments if nothing better emerges. > > > an attempt to get in front of what is a growing wave of demand to > head > > off an outright pronouncement from outside the community which will > > result in number portability. > > Since there's no technical difference between PI and number portability, I > expect approval of PI-space will lead to portability anyway. > > Yes, the current criteria for PI-space are rather limited, but since > there's > no particular technical rationale for picking /N versus /M, I expect to > see a > salami-slicing political debate in which people will demand smaller and > smaller blocks be supported, because to do anything else is dumping on the > "little guy", while letting the "big players" have acess to something the > small players don't. I happen to agree with you here, which is why I have been advocating a particular geo approach that can work with existing BGP and be scaled up and down as far as necessary to contain the routes. Unfortunately to date, the IESG has not understood the necessity to have a working group to refine a globally acceptable approach. > > Sigh, we're going to be paying the price for not (long ago) setting up a > charging system for having a route be visible in the "default-free zone". The existence of a "default-free-zone" was long ago relegated to myth status. There are different views of what this mythical entity contains, so by definition there is no single zone. Rather than fight to maintain an ego driven myth, we should be accepting reality and organizing structure in what appears where. > > > there is a middle ground that gets messy because it does not have > > simple solutions without constraining topology. > > ... > > That set of requirements leads to structured allocations and > topology > > constraints. Both sides will have to give > > I'm curious to hear what the ISP's will have to say about this "topology > constraints" stuff... They never like it because it restrains their freedom. At the same time the "carrier" side of the house has learned to deal with it in the PSTN context, so the "ISP" side will be getting an education in dealing with customer/governmental requirements. Tony _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf