[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Tue May 29 20:59:15 CEST 2007
On 29-mei-2007, at 19:38, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> Uh, neither of those reasons undermines the solution others have >>> proposed: use PI space. >> That's like saying people can use real money instead of monopoly >> money. I really don't get this. Did you guys bet a lot of money >> that there would never be ULA-C or something? > Um, no. It's like saying that counterfeit money is bad and we'd > rather not > create a sponsored system for printing it. Your view that ULA-C is like counterfeit money while it's more like monopoly money nicely illustrates the entire point (or rather, pointlessness) of this discussion. On 29-mei-2007, at 19:39, David Williamson wrote: >> If you don't like it, don't use it yourself and filter it, but PLEASE >> don't whine about it. > Calling a debate "whining" is a bit rude. Whether DHCPv6 is better than stateless autoconfiguration is a debate. The people who think DHCPv6 is the way to go are wrong, but there is no harm in them thinking that: they can run DHCPv6 while I run stateless autoconfig and everyone is happy. The whole ULA-C thing is not a debate. The anti-group is trying to wear the pro-group down by repeating the same few arguments that don't make a whole lot of sense over and over, and try to deprive the pro-group from something that group feels is useful based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's bullying. > My "whining" isn't intended to change your mind - I don't think any > argument I make is likely to do that. My argument, however, is that > there's no problem solved by ULA-C that can't be solved by PI space, That's not really true, because ULA is recognizable as such, while PI space is presumed to be routable, even if routing it isn't desired. But more importantly, ULA-C would be exceedingly easy to get, while PI is exceedingly hard to get. > and the creation of ULA-C would entirely undermine the RIR-based PI > system. If only that were true. Unaggregatable PI is something we know can't work if widely deployed. But the realities of the RIR system are such that this is irrelevant. The only way ULA-C can effectively become PI is if everyone (for a large value of "everyone") accepts those advertisements. That will only happen if everyone thinks its a good idea, i.e., when you guys change your mind. Since there doesn't seem to be much danger of that happening (and people like me, who are also quite stubborn, are also against this) I don't see the problem. And IF we all change our minds, then obviously we'd have a good reason for that, wouldn't we? > If you seriously think that > ULA-C is entirely orthogonal to PI space, and will have zero impact > on the usage of PI space...well...we'll have to agree to disagree. You can agree to disagree on things that are a matter of opinion or believe. You can't agree to disagree on an engineering decision with global impact. > All of this, of course, distracts from the real underlying problem, as > Mr. Vixie points out. Identifier/locator split, you mean? There was no way they could have designed and implemented that successfully 25 years ago: not enough giants to stand on the shoulders of. We can probably do those parts now, but I'm not so sure about being able to deploy it, and if it's actually going to buy us something if we manage that.