Harald, >> Michel Py wrote: >> Example that works (WRT to being un-routable on the public >> Internet that is): RFC1918. Although we occasionally see >> these on the public Internet, it's due to misconfiguration. >> No customer is going to see their upstream and offer them >> money to leak or route RFC1918 addresses, because it >> achieves nothing (because RFC1918 addresses are ambiguous). >> No demand, no routing. Since what we are talking about here >> is to remove ambiguity, we must provide a replacement for >> what ambiguity provides in terms of enforcing the non >> -public-routability.
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > when IPv4 customers come to their ISP and offer them money > in order to route RFC 1918 addresses to places the customer > is not directly connected to, we usually call the result a > provider provisioned VPN. > Demand seems widespread. > So if we roll out globally unique non-routable addresses, > we should not be at all surprised to see that ISPs will > actually route them if offered enough money; it's simpler > (and therefore cheaper) for them than configuring a VPN. Agree. What would be a surprise is if they would not try. > (of course this only works in v4 if the two ends have > coordinated their RFC 1918 deplyment plans. There are > a lot of cases when they do.) Which is why we need to reduce the odds of what you described two paragraphs ago happening in v6 as much as we possibly can. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
