I have no problem with it, but we don't have to do a thing in the IETF. It's a business decision for an ISP.
I do prefer that the IETF defines a solution that doesn't rely on ISPs happening to see a business opportunity. Brian Michel Py wrote: > > jj, > > > Earlier, I suggested that an ISP could delegate addresses > > out of its existing aggregated, global unicast address block > > for free without providing connectivity. Having seen all of > > the email on this subject, I believe that such an ISP could > > actually sell prefixes for which it doesn't provide direct > > connectivity. Such addresses could be used for VPN's, etc. > > without fear of collision. Traffic destined to such addresses > > on the Internet would be aggregated to the ISP, and probably > > sent to /dev/null. > > I like this better than anything else I have seen to date. > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
