If I the only choices available are widespread PI and widespread NAT,
then we need to really change the way we approach things. Either of
those is a very bad answer.
Now, at least some of the folks supporting this PI assignment
initiative have indicated that they do not believe it will be
widespread (either because the barriers will still be high or because
the demand for BGP based multi-homing is small, or maybe for some
other reason.) If that assumption is correct, then the comparison
with NAT is irrelevant.
Yours,
Joel M. Halpern
At 06:57 PM 4/17/2006, Terry Gray wrote:
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> PI is like spam - it looks attractive to the people using it, because it's
> free to them. The fact that it costs *other* people money is something
> they don't care about - it's not coming out of their pocket.
Noel,
While I might have chosen a different metaphor, I can agree with
the basic point, yet I wonder:
Would you agree with the thesis that *without* pervasive PI, the
future of NAT (or some other mechanism for providing address autonomy
to organizations) is absolutely guaranteed forever (even with v6)?
To me, that seems obvious, so I'd be interested in counter arguments.
It does make me wonder if there is any hope for resurrection of 8+8...
-teg
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf