> > Tony Hain wrote: > > Maybe the way to solve this is to take the 'must be 0' bits and > > define them as 'locally administered' > > That is what we were talking about: site IDs in SL addresses. > > > with a clear note that FE00::/8 will be blocked on the > > public net. > > How can you guarantee this? If customers demand their ISPs to leak SL > addresses because customers see SL as a PI address they can't get > otherwise, ISPs will take the money at some point.
so what? an ISP can sell its own routing table space (and router cpu time) if it wishes. that doesn't mean that other ISPs have to propagate those advertisements, and there's a fair amount of incentive for them to not do so. > It is a terrible responsibility to embed everyone-gets-one-PI-address in > the addressing architecture. why do you think it's not an equally terrible responsible to say "nobody gets a global address prefix unless it's tied to a provider"? > If the policy groups decide to give a PI > address to everyone, their call not us me thinks. what makes you think that the policy groups are better qualified than we are to make such a decision? we have enough trouble understanding the various technical implications (at all protocol layers and above) of such a decision - the policy groups are even less knowledgable. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
