On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:54:17PM +0200, Benny Amorsen wrote: > On 2003-06-11 at 22:23, Shannon -jj Behrens wrote: > > > Outsiders can't even tell it's not a normal prefix (which is a > > blessing and a curse), let alone state that they also purchased the > > prefix from some other ISP. > > I think that is a curse.
As I mentioned earlier, the harder problem is that there isn't an easily recognizeable prefix such as fec0 that stacks and firewalls can give special treatment to. > It means that in normal circumstances I can > expect to see what was supposed to be my unique addresses advertised by > routing protocols as part of a larger aggregated space. That's true. However, (please forgive me naivete concerning routing) you'll just have to use a more specific route for your own usage of those unique addresses. > However, this is something that will happen no matter what anyone says. > I would just prefer that /my/ non-routable addresses stayed out of the > global routing tables. Several people such as yourself (e.g. Michele Py) have suggested that "local" addresses will be advertised no matter what. Others have stated that there is no such thing as unique unless there's a route in the DFZ to prove the uniqueness (e.g. kre, if I remember right). My solution simply takes the lemons and makes lemonade. Best Regards, -jj -- Hacker is to software engineer as Climbing Mt. Everest is to building a Denny's there. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
