[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Draft on Globally Unique IPv6 Local Unicast Addresses



Brian,

>> Michel Py wrote:
>> It has nothing to do with the prefix itself but with the scope. 

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Of course. And why is the scope issue different, just because
> we have removed the ambiguity?

I read this the same way Jim does:

> Jim Bound wrote:
> What is so elegant about this proposal is that it completely
> eliminates the need for an implemented scoping architercture
> within products today

There is "no scoping" written all over Bob's draft. Without getting into
the "is this a good thing or not" stuff so far I have not seen any
proposal that could mitigate the risk of removing ambiguity without
creating a swamp if there is no scoping to back it up. In other words,
if scoping goes the ambiguity will remain.


>>>> 2. We can't enforce operators to filter the prefix. I dropped 
>>>> filters on my BGP feeds and from one of my peers (a well-known 
>>>> player) I get all kinds of crud including /64 routes, /48 routes, 
>>>> /41 routes, name it I get it.

>>> I think there will be Darwinian effects here, as we saw during the 
>>> first years of CIDR. But yes, if someone pays enough, they will get 
>>> their /64 announced. That will happen whatever we write in RFCs.

>> My point exactly. We can't rely on this alone.

> Now explain why it's a problem, if the customers pay
> enough to cover the costs. 

I though we were on agreement that routing table bloat was not a good
idea?

Michel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------