Subject: RE: Draft: PI addressing derived from AS numbers

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:03:28 -0800

> Eliot Lear wrote:
> Ultimately the same (or very similar) routing decision process
> will occur, with the same complexity and the same problems, so
> I would agree with you assessments.  Thus, while I understand
> the reasoning for the proposal, I would argue that perhaps the
> best thing to do is nothing until we have something better.
> That may be a while.  Oh well...

I concur with this. Pekka, your draft is clever. I'm not sure I can
express correctly my feelings about it, but I'll try. It is a valuable
contribution and I strongly encourage you to keep making such
contributions. You deserve credit for it. I will fight it not because
it's bad (it's not) but because the timing is not right.

Your draft amounts to admitting that we collectively failed to deliver a
multihoming solution for IPv6. The time to make this call has not come
yet.

Michel.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:19:26 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Michel Py wrote:
[...]
> multihoming solution for IPv6. The time to make this call has not come

If that's how folks feel, that's fine.  It's all about the timing.  As 
said, I don't like the approach either, but I guess we have different 
timescales in our heads.

However, please note that the ASN-PI proposal is/was _not_ meant to be a
catchall solution.  Only a solution for those folks who have currently
found it important enough to perform the most extensive form of
multihoming, via obtaining AS numbers and a prefix (or stealing one).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings