Quoting RFC2860 [Re: I-D Action:draft-azinger-scalable-addressing-00.txt]
michael at rancid.berkeley.edu
Mon Sep 27 19:01:24 CEST 2010
On 09/27/10 09:08, Tony Li wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>>> Agreed. Once again, we are trying to agree on an addressing
>>> architecture, not policy.
>> The statement "*you* get your own globally visible chunk of address
>> space, and *you* don't" sounds very much like what we have in our
>> policy documents.
> Well, the significant distinction that we're trying to make is based
> on topology. We leave the judgement calls to the policy makers, as
> that WOULD be policy.
I think I see where I am missing a point of the draft here. Consider
the example of a small ISP that provides v4/v6 dial-up services (and
maybe even runs a v6 tunnel broker) for rural customers. They are
single-homed. From a topological perspective, they look exactly like an
end site, despite the fact that they provide services to a lot of
independent customers. OTOH, a large corporation that has several
campuses and is multi-homed definitely looks like a service provider
topologically, even though it is only providing services to itself.
For me, who sometimes looks at these things economically, the former is
a service provider and the latter is an end site. Topologically, the
former is an end site and the latter is a service provider.
Would it clarify things to recommend that single-homed entities get PA
and multi-homed get PI rather than use the more loaded distinction
between service providers and end sites, or is that not the intent of
More information about the ipv6-ops