Re: [GLOBAL-V6] PI space under IPv6

[Peter Sherbin <pesherb@yahoo.com>]

>From ARIN IPv6 address policy I have drafted a new one for a review but it has no
immediate use unless the architecture is changed. The architecture determines
address distribution. The same architecture reflects the use of addresses by end
users. A chicken-and-the-egg on a surface but it is not.

It goes: user application -> (number) requirement -> routing architecture -> number
policy.

The very basic user requirement is to control their application. An application
supervises discrete items. Managing items means modeling. Modeling requires numbers.
Unique names are easy to count.

Counting items (naming) gives control. Communicating items (routing) provide more
control and opportunity.

Hence there is a need for two number sets:
1. names to count (end user requirement)
2. addresses to communicate (SDO concern)

Thanks,
Peter


--- David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:58:37AM -0800, Peter Sherbin wrote:
> > > 	Why, exactly? The distinction is real, and points to
> > > 	real and looming problems with the (IPv6) routing system.
> > 
> > PI is just a requirement from users. The infrustructure to
> > support it needs fixing, hence there is this discussion. 
> 
> 	Yes, and as you know, there are ongoing discussions in
> 	many other other fora as well . The problem here, as
> 	I see it, is that given the user requirement (as you
> 	point out), the RIRs have no other technology (or
> 	whatever) available to implement it. That one is on
> 	us. Note that I'm not saying that many  in our community
> 	haven't tried (on the contrary), but as this thread
> 	points out, little (read: nothing) has happened since the
> 	deployment of CIDR. 
> 
> > Actually people asking for PI are more concerned with a pool of
> > IDs to name/control/monitor their items/things and 
> > less so with routing. So split ID/locator. Give IDs to
> > people. Build routing on locators. ISPs  will follow the new
> > architecture. Opposing ISPs will be naturally replaced by new 
> > willing ones. 
> 
> 	If only it were that simple. History seems to be telling
> 	us otherwise (see Paul's note in this thread). That
> 	doesn't mean we should give up (I'm the poster child for
> 	not giving up), but lets also not trivialize how hard
> 	this has been, both in terms of the technology needed,
> 	but also in terms of all (all) of the supporting
> 	"infrastructure" (e.g., IETF, RIRs, SP business models,
> 	...). 
> 
> 	That being said, I'm heartened that so many in this
> 	community are still willing to take a whack at fixing
> 	this, especially given the checkered history we're
> 	dealing with.
> 
> 	--dmm
> 
> 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367