Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:16:03 -0700
From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Tony and I are
| proposing schemes that are aggregatable and that are not tied to a
| provider.
Unfortunately, they have just as many drawbacks - just different ones
(in some cases).
Both those schemes are geographic based addresses - these aggregate if and
only if one assumes that areas that are geographically close are also
topologically close. I have seen no evidence that there's any truth in
this at all.
They're provider independent only of there are multiple providers that
have agreed to cooperate with each other and share the prefix (essentially
routing packets to each other when they arrive at the "wrong" place).
While that is entirely possible to assume might happen in some high
density usage parts of the world, where multiple providers can all exist
and make a profit, in much of the world, the simply aren't enough active
users to support the infrastructure for multiple providers.
Anyone would always be free to connect to a different provider, by simply
connecting to a more distant location of course - but then their address
would not (could not if any aggregation at all is to be achieved) be based
upon their geography, but the provider's instead. That is, to change
providers an address change is likely to be required for many (perhaps
most) and for those it isn't, the provider choice will be limited to
those who have managed to join the local provider club.
On the other issue ... anyone can (attempt to) pay any ISP, or set of
ISPs to carry any address. The rish is certainly no greater of that
happening with a SL address with a site-id embedded, than it is for a
global address allocated by a different provider, or a geographic
address from some other region.
If anything, the risk is less with SL addresses, as they can be clearly
labelled "for local use only", lowering the chances that people will ever
decide they would like to interpret them as global addresses (all of these
things are just numbers, so perceptions, and what the ISPs will agree to
do are all that matters anyway). Global addresses are expected to be
globally visible, and there's no reason at all to assume that people won't
go to a competitor ISP and say "I will connect to you, and pay you all
these $'s if you will agree to advertise the prefix I have already been
allocated this other way" (and even say to ISPs, "I will connect to you,
and you allocate me an address, but you agree thatonce allocated you can
never reclaim the address, no matter whether I stop paying you or not").
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
