Robert Elz wrote: > ... > 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").
The problem is that the local ISP has every motivation to take the money with no substantial costs, because those appear at the aggregating transit providers upstream. While it sounds nice to say we will legislate against that, reality is that it will happen, so the only reasonable defense is to provide an alternative that scales. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
