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

[Nick Hilliard]

On 27/09/2010 23:36, Fred Baker wrote:
> So you would very strongly prefer a world in which router memory sizes
> are required to be effectively infinite.

Fred, let's leave the straw men in the basket.

As stated many times before, by many people - PI provides multihoming 
capability and provider independence at low levels of both cost and 
complexity.  There are no other ways of implementing provider addressing 
independence, and no feasible ways of implementing end-site multihoming.

Let's put this another way:  if I were a small hosting company, my 
requirement to put bread on my table and pay my mortgage would trump your 
desire to keep the dfz small.  This is the reality that many people face.

Yes, this is the tragedy of the commons.  No, operators don't like it.

But for the record, let me repeat once more:  there will be no solution to 
the problem of PI until the multihoming and provider independence problems 
have been solved.  If these things are fixed, then operators will listen to 
your pleas that PI needs to be ditched, but not before.  In the interim, we 
will continue to do our best to aggregate PA and to discourage people from 
using PI, where possible.

> seem to think that the IETF (and therefore the vendors, as operators
> tell us they don't like to attend IETF meetings)

In my case - and I suspect many others too - it's not a question of "don't 
like", but rather "can't justify the budget or time required".  Again, this 
relates to IETF activities not directly putting bread on my table or paying 
my mortgage.  Sorry, but I don't work for a large company which can afford 
to send me to three meetings a year in far-flung places, and where there is 
no tangible, short-medium term return on financial investment.  This sucks, 
but I don't have a choice in the matter.

Nick