On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 13:31, Michel Py wrote: > Margaret, > > >> Michel Py wrote: > >> There is room for both models at the same, and "good > >> enough" is not going to be good enough for everybody. > > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I would need to see a very compelling case for why two > > types of globally-unique/provider-independent addressing > > are needed before I would like to see two models. > > Reaching consensus. Pekka's model has generated some positive comments. > > > > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > I think that one of the benefits of globally-unique/ > > provider-independent addresses over site-locals is that > > it is possible to tell (when one is leaked in any of the > > possible ways exactly where the address came from... > > This would, of course, work best if the addresses were > > actually unique, rather than mostly-unique. > > Agreed, identifying the source of the leak also requires that these > addresses are registered somewhere (which is the model I proposed) and > not randomly generated. >
I don't think it necessarily requires registration - usually a traceroute toward the leaked route will give a good indication where it is coming from. Alternatively, origin AS numbers are also a good hint. Maybe leaked routes in the Internet eg 10/8 aren't so much that common, it's just that they are very prominent when they occur, because you know that you shouldn't be seeing them. Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
