Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 04 June 2008 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D67E33A6952; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C863A692C for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7T6WscMiT4R6 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21F233A67EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 21:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k34so1174764wah.25 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wv2NQWrkKCTkVuDIhXP3oHLC2Le+rKww5WVBObyRbB0=; b=RjOLUrGpS9nl7n90C/kkV6e7I1cJjPHBytpuW8wLrnN+/okx9th5L1Vc4vcJJJUSjVOko/en1BcU8/cg2KDMPymnbkLyWZCrMvAc0kbqsxYZ4h2/JApcwuNKHPxD0J47v5l+pkA6BMcACx7zCGdik/oKxZ2WQwX1XX+gnzkL6Kw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=G5pnUKBzXGFBY7Dd/8LsQrQrRYCZ3e89gb2FTUWTsVaigKjczcyp8IRgaAIPK++CnIZWmkZkKCEwC32MS/rPIleSbsLufyvaSmgspQwGDjsOFVvRbhHCn8s2JMUSMAIFsAwGyPNX7jO/jwpGmcvy7Zqu6HnOtxlsP6gPL9LwBts=
Received: by 10.114.235.8 with SMTP id i8mr12219749wah.194.1212553265670; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.1.1.4? ( [118.93.77.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m5sm1650461wag.52.2008.06.03.21.21.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <48461822.8070608@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:20:50 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Abley <jabley@ca.afilias.info>
Subject: Re: RFC 3484 Section 6 Rule 9
References: <C46AB084.3A7B8%leo.vegoda@icann.org> <4845B998.1010401@gmail.com> <884C2127-D98B-472E-B245-D18CE61D4018@ca.afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <884C2127-D98B-472E-B245-D18CE61D4018@ca.afilias.info>
Cc: marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Joe,

> It seems to me that direct assignment could quite possibly become the
> default for small IPv6 sites in the ARIN region. IPv6 uptake to date has
> been so tiny that I don't think anybody can predict what behaviours will
> become prevalent if/when IPv6 takes off.

We can't predict how economic actors will choose to act. What we can predict
is catastrophe if ten or 100 million sites attempt to push /48 advertisements
out into BGP4. It would be highly irresponsible of any registry to pursue
a policy that leads to such a result, until we have a technical solution
to the resulting scaling problem. It's exactly because we don't have such
a solution that the IPv6 design model is PA.

I'm not shocked at the notion of a few hundred thousand early adopters of
IPv6 getting PI prefixes. But that's a very different matter than millions.

(This remains directly relevant to the subject of this thread. The
infamous Rule 9 exists, right or wrong, because of PA addressing
in IPv6.)

    Brian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf