Subject: RE: [RRG] Renumbering...

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 10:06:21 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>

    > Unfortunately, we've been trying for 15 years to instill charging for
    > routing slots and have gotten no traction. I'd argue that's pretty good
    > proof that that's infeasible too.

Well, you may well be right - the history is certainly daunting. (Then again,
we've been trying to get a loc/id split for _at least_ 15 years too! :-)

I'd heard some rumours that some ISPs were actually looking at this (all it
would take to get the ball rolling would be for a couple of the biggest ones
to start), but maybe the practical difficulty of the actual details is too
large.

    > When true PI is a requirement, then the 'net cannot possible scale.
    > ...
    > Thus, this means that NAT is necessarily a requirement.

That's a very interesting speculation indeed. Does having a single namespace
damn us to forever having NAT?

If so, that would be pretty ironic - in the design that was supposed to
'free' us from NAT (IPv6), one of its fatal flaws instead means it basically
requires NAT - and in the 'IPv6 to IPv6' mode, to boot (unlike the 'NAT
required for IPv4 interoperation in actual deployment' requirement for NAT in
IPv6, which one could argue would be temporary).

	Noel

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg