who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

Mon Nov 22 09:10:22 UTC 2004

On 21-nov-04, at 20:05, Paul Vixie wrote:

>>> (note that i'm not speaking for arin, nor as a member-elect of
>>> arin's board of trustees, i'm just another bozo on this bus.)

>> You're bascially saying that you and people like you are so important
>> that you deserve to receive benefits that go against the public good.

> actually, i'm just trying to keep my role as member-elect of arin's BoT
> separate from my role as an internet citizen.  as it turns out, arin's
> BoT does not have a policy formation role.  when this issue comes up in
> PPML or the AC, i'll speak up, but i'll be explicitly hatless when i 
> do.

I've never been a great believer in hat switching. Even if it is 
possible to fully separate different roles internally, things get 
blurry in the perception of others. In your case "we made him a member 
of the ARIN board of trustees so it would be stupid not to listen to 
him".

> you are drastically misunderstanding my hopes, my goals, and my role.

Please explain them then.

>> It also shows contempt for the IETF, as you reject all possible
>> alternatives to PI out of hand.

> i never rejected all possibilities, just the ones i've personally 
> studied
> so far.

Well, then the question is: how up to date are you with regard to the 
IETF multi6 wg and the discussions about locator/identifier separation 
in general?

> i'm also on record as saying that the easiest time to have fixed
> this was before the current IPng approach was annointed; now we're 
> playing
> catchup.  even you in your multi6 role ought to be wishing that more 
> had
> been done before "IPv6" was cast in stone.

I'm not sure what part of IPv6 you would like to have seen different. 
Sure, there were some mistakes such as the whole ip6.int / ip6.arpa 
debacle, the site local thing that got this discussion started and last 
but not least the DNS resolver discovery issue, but what exactly should 
have been done differently in the area of routing?

>> However, if the RIRs decide to open
>> up PI in IPv6, people will take the quick fix and there won't be any
>> push to get the (admittedly) more complex but more scalable solutions
>> to these problems off the ground.

> somehow i don't think that's going to sway wal-mart's thinking at all, 
> but
> i do look forward to a lively debate next time this comes up on PPML.

It's wrong if these issues that have global impact are decided 
regionally.

> the codification of the current approach as "IPng" in spite of 
> objections
> raised at that time amounted to a recommendation of "let them eat NAT."

I'd rather eat cake than NAT.  :-)