> Paul Vixie wrote: > http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which > i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten > and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them > supports the proposal). in fact, nobody in the ietf intelligensia > supports the proposal. the showstopped is that this appears to many as > an end-run around PI, and the fear is that there's no way to prevent it > from all getting routed anyway. while that's not an unreasonable fear, > i'm alone in considering it a manageable risk. I'm afraid I'll have to leave you alone there. [RIR-PI] makes [ULA-GLOBAL-00] somehow palatable, but not enough. In a nutshell, your argument is that since [RIR-PI] has been adopted, there is little risk that [ULA-GLOBAL-00] degenerates into free-for-all PI. That's a valid point, but IMHO the problem is that [RIR-PI] is not good enough in too many eyes; in other words there still are many remaining temptations to abuse [ULA-GLOBAL-00]. > so while i harken to your concern that "IPv6 will never fly", > i think that the reasons for it are much larger than whatever > part you think ARIN could do differently. Agree. >> Michel Py wrote: >> The real world would probably go for IPv6 NAT instead, but >> the IETF is deadlocked; instead of choosing between the >> lesser of two evils and sacrifice one of the "features", >> they want to have the cake and eat it too. > Paul Vixie wrote: > ietf said don't do nat in v4. the market said screw you. The > market won, and ietf ended up having to add nat support into > various protocols, and started having nat oriented working > groups, and so on. i expect the same with nat v6. I agree, but my point was that the market might prefer double-v4NAT to IPv6 NAT. The situation is quite different: IPv4 NAT solved most of the renumbering issue. IPv6 NAT does not bring anything to the table that IPv4 NAT does not already have. In other words: if you want NAT, no point upgrading to IPv6. > i have more confidence in the ability of router vendors to bend moore's > law and in backbone architects and routing protocol architects to bend > graph theory, than i have for example in diesel-from-algae as a way to > solve the world's carbon problem. so i'm not nec'ily hopeful, but i'm > more hopeless about other things than i am about a 2M-route DFZ. Agree too, but as you said above the reasons are much larger. In other words, even if vendors promised a 10M DFZ capable routers and the RIRs gave PI to anybody who asks for it, we would still be nowhere near take off. > Roger Jørgensen wrote: > are they still refusing to put it into the queue or do anything? Even > after several month? Well let really hope that will change now when/if > IPv6-wg change the name to 6man and we can start working again! A few months are very little time in IETF time! Michel. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf