Re: [RAM] Renumbering impossibility: TSL/SSL certs, DNS delegation etc.

Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au> writes:

> Here is something further to the discussion in the "First cut at
> routing & addressing problem statement" thread on whether or not it
> will ever be possible to have a completely automated method of
> renumbering a network, here more arguments that it will never be
> possible.

> In that thread I argue that the RADIR Problem Statement should not
> be written as if there was even a slight possibility that new
> technologies could make today's networks reliably renumbered by some
> automated means.

Why is it important to do this? If it is feasible to do this, we
shold. If it is not, we won't. Trying to rule it out as a possibility
from the problem statement point of view makes no sense (IMO).

The purpose of the problem statement is to define the problem, and not
rule out _any_ solution, so long as it addresses the problem.

(And no, I'm not about to argue that getting automatic/painless
renumbering is about to happen. But let any proposed solution in that
direction be evaluated  on its merits please!).

It's much more productive to focus on solution aproaches that folk
think might be viable, than spending cycles trying to rule out
approaches that aren't being pushed very heavily...

> As far as I know, this notion of IPv6 end-users supposedly being
> happy with PA space and automated renumbering has been going on for
> ten years or so.

Um, AFAIK, people have NOT been making this argument.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram