Re: [ipv6-wg] The Pope gets IPv6 PA space (not PI :)

[David Conrad <david.conrad@localhost]

Ben,

This would appear to be yet another instantiation of the geo- 
political vs. network topological addressing argument.
> I would have thought that an independent state should have the  
> right to receive at least one PI prefix allocation.
Independent states don't need address space.  Really.  Devices on  
state or independently owned and operated networks within and between  
independent states do.  At least for Internet connectivity.
> The thought of one's country being entirely dependent on receiving  
> its entire space from a (most likely) commercial organisation in  
> another country is not very appealing.
Grant a country PI space and the easiest way to deal with routing  
that space is to have a country-wide monopoly on telecommunication  
services.  Not particularly appealing to me, but some folks (in  
particular, the prospective monopoly) might prefer this approach.
> Imagine if your country could only get its connectivity from  
> another country, and "diplomatic issues" with that country caused  
> your connection to become unreliable.
In general, I imagine governments tend to take a somewhat dim view of  
basing critical infrastructure on external parties.  More  
realistically, a country will have a telecommunications  
infrastructure they, by law, control over which services (such as the  
Internet) run.  Whether there is a single PTT building/using that  
infrastructure or multiple carriers is a toss up (though the tendency  
has been towards the latter).  However, in either case, ISPs  
(domestic or foreign) use that infrastructure to provide their services.
In my personal view, allocating address space on geo-political  
boundaries is either throwing address space away (because it isn't  
routed) or contributing to The Greater Swamp (because it is and the  
only way it can be is if it is in the DFZ).
Rgds,
-drc