I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt

Tony Li tony.li at tony.li
Sun Sep 26 07:28:47 CEST 2010

On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:22 PM, David Conrad wrote:

> The protocol doesn't easily support renumbering.  As a (non-exclusive) result, provider aggregatable is less desirable (from an enterprise perspective) than provider independent.  From my perspective, attempting to "insist on aggregation" (that is, discouraging enterprise PI) implies attempting to define a particular relationship between networks operators. Haven't we been here before?

Yes, we have.  However, I'm still unsure as to what recommendation you are making for how we proceed.

We have attempted to make many architectural changes, we have recommended renumbering, and all of these have pretty much fallen flat on their face.

Yes, we are in the same place that we were before, unsurprisingly.  Thus, we need to apply the same band-aids.


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list