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

[Elmar K. Bins]

Guys...

tony.li at tony.li (Tony Li) wrote:

> >> Nope, sorry, you don't get to change the game in the middle.  You asked 
> >> for a path equivalent or better than what a single prefix would give you.
> > Yes.  So how is this changing the game?
> Because the current path is NOT the shortest path.

And the shortest path is often not the desired path (policy).


> > see with the currently existing technology.
> Very relevant if you're trying to a direct comparison.  Both PA and PI must be held to the exact same standard.

Definitely. Otherwise, why would people want PI anyway? If the stuff
is not / worse routable...


> > Since we're talking about *current* technology, the egress prefix has
> > to be selected by the sending host.  There is nothing in my ASBRs today
> > that could "apply a prefix".

Currently, the egress prefix in IPv4 is selected pretty simply:
  The source IP (defining the egress prefix) is the first address on the
  interface the chosen route points out of.

  In IPv6 there is an added step, selecting whether or not to use the
  link-local address. Apart from that, it works the same way (well,
  sometimes there's some randomness involved).

That's all a host does and *should* do. Basic local routing and - out
of necessity! - choosing a source address.


> Hurrying to get IPv6 out and recreate the IPv4 routing table explosion to me seems like you're intentionally working to move us into a position where we have no path forward.  Wouldn't it be better to fix the problems that we have before we move people onto v6?

Tony - we had 15 years to do so. It is definitely too late.

(I mean, hey, if even Deutsche Telekom is giving us a timeframe,
everybody else should already be set...)

Cheer up,
	Elmar.

-- 

"Machen Sie sich erst einmal unbeliebt. Dann werden Sie auch ernstgenommen."
							     (Konrad Adenauer)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20101007/872568dc/attachment.sig>