> >> You are missing the point. If network administrators > >> do not like restricted SLs, they will use 2002:0A00::/24 > >> instead, a one-way ticket to NAT. > > > humbug. this is too fanciful to have any credibility. > > why should network adminis pick an obscure prefix when > > we are making much better and more obvious solutions > > available? > > Because they want addresses that are not publicly routable, and nothing > you can say will change this.
Well, maybe we'll end up making GUPIs not publically routable. I guess I'd like to hear more about this rationale from others, though - it makes less sense to trust unrelated parties to filter your traffic than it does to trust your own border filters (or your ISPs, or both). > Here's the dilemma: if the scope of GUPI is global, how could you > guarantee that people won't pay their ISPs to leak the GUPI address in > the defaultless routing table? If people don't want their addresses to be publically routable, why would they pay their ISPs to route them? > The big difference is that with GUSL we would have extended the scope to > friendly sites, not to global. The risk of GUSL ending up global PI > could be managed. I don't see how this is changed by a decision to not use FEC0::/10 for globally unique addresses. > With GUPI, you are asking for a blank check. If GUPI addresses leak > unaggregated in the global routing table, we have recreated the IPv4 > swamp and possibly killed IPv6. How do you plan to manage this risk? It's a complex question, and I don't want to gloss over it. However, a lot of the perceived risk seems to have to do with the idea that ISPs will let their routing performance degrade rather than raise their prices. So maybe if we could get widespread agreement on minimum acceptable routing performance (e.g. convergence times) then the market would take care of the rest by making it so expensive to advertise a PI prefix globally that few would do it. But there still seems to be an inherent conflict between those who are demanding non-routable addresses (is anyone else demanding this?) and those who want GUPIs to be routable. If there's really sufficient demand for both maybe we need separate blocks. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
