On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 11:12:15AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
so have a new way to get it in a few pieces. given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise.
So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"?
I interpret it as "we are driving in fog and don't know the road ahead, lets better wear a safety belt". And I do not see why assigning larger blocks to the RIRs would speed up the IPv6 deployment. I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something that does not end in IR at all? We should keep organizational scalability in mind as much as technical scalability. Both are equally important, so ignoring one of the two seems like a mistake to me. I would even go so far as to say that in the future most likely the technical scalability issues regarding Address assignment will be smaller then they are today (by looking at the technical improvements regarding possible routing table size over the last 20 years). Nils -- [Bananenweizen] Denn es läuft dem einzigen wichtigen Menschenrecht zuwider, das Deutschland hervorgebracht hat, nämlich dem deutschen Reinheitsgebot. [Harald Zils in de.alt.arnooo]