> Keith Moore wrote: > no, this isn't what my goals are. I don't want to make > FEC0::/10s unique, nor do I want to make them globally > routable. I want to discourage use of that prefix, and > provide a separate set of addresses which are globally > unique and routable off-site by private arrangement. > If at some later date we figure out how to make them > globally routable, so much the better.
So what is the difference between this new GUPI block and GUSLs, except that you want a possible evolution to globally routable for the new GUPI block? >> Do you call recommending a default blackhole in >> routers an architectural limitation? > not sure. here's the question - let's say that 3 years > from now we figure out how to make routing of GUPIs scale > globally. having biased the last three years' worth of > routers to filter them, how do we then upgrade the routers > to not filter them? The obvious answer is that we create a new block _then_, not now. >> PI global addresses do NOT exist. > we've been talking about various proposals for creating > them since long before Atlanta. where have you been? Ahem, I am leading this part. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
