larger space was: Re: [NIC-....

{ continuing Paul,Tim .... }

This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address
lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no
longer a luxury that can be expected.

Hmmm. In actuality, there is nothing 'simple' about the concept of
address ownership and address portability; and to label the issue
'simple' is to obfuscate a multidimensional issue.

Anyone who as been either in the middle of the CIDR-renumbering
debate or enjoying from the sidelines is fully aware that the
issues are not just 'harmlessly forwarding meaningless documents',
so let's 'just do it and forget about it'....

The fact remains that there are numerous other possibilities; such
as fixing DNS and introducing NAT technology at the NAP level
that allow aggregation at the provider level of the hierarchy and
not at the user level. This imposes, however, the problem and
solution on the providers and not the end-user; which BTW is
the correct approach, and it is a drain of energy and resources
to continue down this 'beat up the end user' path choosen by
the WG in question.

So we oscillate between 'complexity and simplicity'. The issues
are complex and controversial on a full moon ; simple and clear
another phase. This should clearly signal a red flag when
protagonists of renumbering change position based on the audience
and phase of the moon.

Best Regards,


'The Heretic'