Subject: Re: IPv6 address space shortages (was: Re: A simple question)

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:52:44 -0400

> From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>

    > For purposes of geographic routing

The Multi6 WG just went over geographic addressing again, for about the 17th
time in the IETF (I seem to recall previous go-rounds on it in CIDRD and
IPng), and finally left off talking about it, on the grounds that there were
enough people against it that it was extremely unlikely there would ever be
rough consensus for it.

I suggest the same calculation ought to occur in this forum, i.e. that
there's no point discussing geographic addressing, since there's never going
to be rough consensus for it.

	Noel

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:23:01 +0200

On woensdag, apr 30, 2003, at 02:52 Europe/Amsterdam, J. Noel Chiappa 

> enough people against it that it was extremely unlikely there would 

I wouldn't exactly characterize the discussion this way.

Yes, we discussed it, but I don't feel my draft got a fair hearing. 
I've seen very little evidence that people actually read it, most of 
the arguments are of the quality "my aunt Bertha connects to two ISPs 
in different continents so geographic aggregation can never work".

We sorta kinda agreed that we need a draft to put the issue to bed for 
a good long time, but nothing concrete here.

> to be rough consensus for it.

This sounds awfully similar to what the French said about a new 
security council resolution about Iraq: regardless of the content of 
your proposal, we'll veto it.

For those of you who want to form your own opinion, this is the 
addressing draft that uses a /16 for the entire world (just for 
multihomed networks, others continue to use PA space):
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-py-multi6-gapi-00.txt

And this draft outlines the aggregation procedures inside ISP networks 
(so no announcing of aggregates between ISPs):
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-00.txt

(They both expire this month so I'm not sure if they're still in the 
IETF drafts repository.)

Any questions are probably best handled off-list.

Iljitsch van Beijnum