Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What you refuse to acknowledge is that there is a high probability that
the Hinden/Haberman draft will be misused as globally routable PI.
There's a 100% probability it will be used for inter-enterprise routing (i.e. exceptions such as VPNs to normal routing). There's probably a 100% probability that some enterprises will pay ISPs to announce /48s into the DFZ (as mentioned above). But I don't think that is a characteristic of the Hinden/Haberman draft. It will happen whatever we define. The trick is to make it an exception rather than the rule.
I agree with your premise, there is a 100% probability that some of those PI /48 will be routed in the DFZ. I disagree with your conclusion, the trick is to make sure that _when_ this happens (and not if), it does not create chaos.
What I dislike most about the Hinden/Haberman draft is the "anonymity" of the randomly generated prefixes. As they are not registered anywhere, debugging will be more difficult. Today, we have two major tools when we'd like to see where an address is coming from: - the routing system, with BGP annoucement and/or traceroute - the whois database. Using the Hinden/Haberman draft, one of those tools will go away.
So, as I wrote in this forum about a week ago, what I'd like to see in that area is simply provider independant, registry allocated, easy accessible (very low registry fees, no question asked) public address space, and then forget about the "scope" discussion which is an operational/business issue.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
