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

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-08.txt



On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:33:28AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> bmanning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>Bill, you could do that if the prefixes are *routed* but that is
> >>>>not going to be the case if the ULA spec is followed, except for
> >>>>private routing arrangements. Since the spec says they MUST NOT
> >>>>be globally routed, it seems entirely rational to apply the same
> >>>>rule to your zone files. But as I said before, I can live with
> >>>>SHOULD NOT.
> >>>>
> >>>> Brian
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>      please define "globally routable" in technical terms.
> >>
> >>Why? I didn't use that phrase. The draft doesn't say that, it says
> >>that ULA prefixes must not be globally routed. Different.
> >
> >
> >	i guess that i am confused here.  what does it mean to be "globally 
> >	routed"?
> 
> Advertised in BGP4+ between all or most ISPs.

	to borrow your term, thats pretty woolly as well.
	ISP is very nebulous. It has never been adaquately
	defined.  
	given that the predominant EGP (BGPv4) has extensive
	knobs for policy control, there is not and can not be a 
	common view of "globally routed". One can take snap shots 
	from various "peepholes" but that does not global routed make.
	What really matters is can i get my packets to the folks who 
	want/need then and can they get their packets to me?  There is no such
	thing as a "globally routed" prefix.  They do not exist.
	I would like to be proven wrong of course, but I don't think
	it can be done.  Please prove me wrong.


> >	and how is that different than "globally routable"?
> 
> I didn't attempt to define that since it is indeed a woolly phrase.
> Any prefix *could* be globally routed; the interesting question is
> whether it *is* globally routed.

	bingo!  and since globally routed is nebulous, it does nto
	matter... what matters is, do my packets get to where they are going
	and will the desired replies get back.

> 
> >>>      and since routing is not the same as lookup, your assertion
> >>>      about the "rational" nature of registration in a lookup system
> >>>      does not hold much credence.
> >>
> >>Not at all. As others have pointed out, if DNS returns AAA records
> >>for prefixes that are not in fact routed, TCP timeouts will result.
> >>That's sufficient reason to not put such records in your zone files.
> >
> >
> >	so your DNS server in Zurich is expected to have knowledge 
> >	about the state of the routing system between ISPs in Argentina?
> >	This problem is functionally identical to the original route server
> >	concept that was used in the NSF NAPs.  ISP A could talk to the 
> >	RS and ISP B could talk to the RS, but they could not talk to each
> >	other ...  From the RS point of view, it had no knowledge of the
> >	policy filters that prevented these two ISPs from exchanging traffic.
> >
> >	DNS is a lookup system.  It has zero idea about the currnet state
> >	of reachability/routedness ... telling me i should not place records
> >	in my DNS that are useful to me, just because they are not useful to 
> >	you is presumptious at best.
> >
> >	when/if the DNS carries explicit routing information, then i'll be
> >	willing to buy into your argument... not until then though.
> 
> Perhaps you don't like the reality that most enterprises operate
> 2-faced DNS, but they do.

	what does that have to do with this question?

> 
>     Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@xxxxxxxx
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------