Margaret, > Margaret Wasserman wrote: > - GUPI addresses may also be used to communicate over > private links with other GUPI-addressed networks. > In other words, several companies may use GUPI > addresses to communicate with each other over > a shared extranet. These types of networks are > quite common in some industries for suppliers/ > customers or data center/clients. This wouldn't > and shouldn't require that multiple companies > share a GUPI prefix, just that they have routes > that point to each other.
Yes. > - You may have different "levels" of GUPI addresses within > a single network... Some devices may use addresses > that are filtered at the department level, some > may be filtered at the corporate level, and > some may be filtered at the extranet level, for > example. Yes, but this is not specific to GUPI. > - Some companies may pay their ISPs to globally route their > GUPI addresses. I know that some people don't > want this to be possible, but I'm not sure why. Explosion of the routing table. No-no. > I agree that we should only advise this if we can > come up with an aggregable method for allocating > GUPI addresses. I disagree. We should not advise this for any reason. The reason I proposed a method for aggregatable GUPIs is for the RIRs or whoever would assign these addresses to get a jumpstart at doing it, as it would be very similar to the final goal which is globally unique *and* globally routable. But one problem at a time. We are not ready for global PI yet, aggregatable or not. Let me make myself clear that I will sabotage my own aggregatable proposal if there are no guarantees about the non-routability. The one thing that won't fly is to pervert the use of FEC0::/10 for globally routable purposes. It is not why IANA allocated that prefix. It would be simpler to ask for a new prefix, when time has come. Besides, I will point out that if GUPIs become globally routable, people that wanted private addresses will use 2002:0A00::/24 and we will be back to square one except that we would have created a big PI mess in the global routing table. The fact that globally unique site-locals are aggregatable or not does not change the need to enforce their un-routability. What could reach consensus today is GUSL: Globally unique site-locals. - Globally unique, free, no registration (Charlie Perkins) - GUSL blackholed by default (Bob Hinden) - GUSL BGP routes discarded by default (Michel Py) Optional, if it reaches consensus and if someone implements them: Globally unique, geographically aggregatable, registration needed. Lots of ifs, should not delay process if consensus is reached on what is above. One problem at a time, please. > There will continue to be application-level and mobility > issues with these addresses, or any type of private or > filtered addresses. The problems are reduced by the fact > that the addresses are not ambiguous, but the problems > are not all eliminated. However, it seems that people > _will_ use filtering to create private networks. The > best we can do is try to provide a solution that > mitigates the damage. I agree with the assessment, time to be realistic in what could reach consensus. Michel. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
