Michael Thomas wrote: > > Steven M. Bellovin writes: > > Don't forget mergers and private interconnects. The latter are *very* > > common, even without counting telecommuters. One shouldn't use > > site-local there, but it's a path that often bypasses firewalls and > > other official demarcation points. > > > > If interconnections never occur, we don't need to worry about the > > problems that can happen. My fear is that they occur all too often. > > (What percentage of queries to the root name servers come from 1918 > > addresses?) > > Am I the only one that finds the term "private > interconnect" somewhat specious? As in, if people > make larger x-realm internets by plumbing their > own wires instead of through an ISP, why should > that be thought of differently than the Internet? > Maybe that's why this entire concept is so > unsettling to me.
The question is, at what scale does route aggregation begin to matter? The sort of VPN-based or merger-and- acquisition based networks we are talking about don't seem to be anywhere near that scale; we know that flat routing of thousands of prefixes is possible. So it may be philosophically unsettling, but I don't think it is operationally unsettling. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
