> the concern i heard wrt ULA-G (and therefore wrt ULA-C upon > with -G is based) is that the filtering recommendations in > RFC 4193 were as unlikely to "work" > as the filtering recommendations in RFC 1597 and RFC 1918.
Given the overwhelming success of RFC 1918 it only requires a very small percentage of sites leaking routes to make it seem like a big problem. This is normal. When you scale up anything, small nits happen frequently enough to become significant issues. But that is not a reason to get rid of RFC 1918. The fact that the filtering recommendations of ULA-C and ULA-G have the same flaws as RFC 1918 is a not sufficient reason to reject them wholesale. > i realized in > that moment, that ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end > run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some > day, the people who are then responsible for global address > policy and global internet operations, will end the "tyranny > of the core" by which we cripple all network owners in their > available choices of address space, based solely on the > tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system. > but we appear not to be the generation who will make that leap. I think that even today, if you analyze Internet traffic on a global scale, you will see that there is a considerable percentage of it which "bypasses" the core. Let the core use filters to protect the DFZ because the DFZ is no longer necessary for a workable Internet. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
