Keith Moore writes:
> > I've been staring at this for three days, and I think the
> > answer (in the current state of the BGP art) is "yes", or
> > at least the risk that it is "yes" is unacceptably high.
> > Just stuffing some probably-unique bits into a SL is not
> > going to generate aggregatable addresses; it's going to
> > generate entropy in the routing table.
>
> the premise has to be that SL + site-ids are NOT going to
> get advertised to the public routing tables. if there's not
> a mechanism for preventing this now, we need to invent one.
> but that's not a reason to force or even encourage sites
> to use non-unique prefixes, especially when SLs without
> site-ids cause problems for distributed applications.
Define "public". Given the peerwise distribution
of routes, isn't the distinction of "public"
rather arbitrary? If I convince my provider to
route my site local prefix across their backbone
(but not leaked outside their AS's), is that a
violation? What about if my provider then convinces
their upstream provider to do likewise to extend
my reach? Is that public? And how likely is it that
ISP's would pay attention to any such strictures if
they figured it was an easy way to build what is
for all intents and purposes a VPN of the MPLS
variety?
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
