"Alan E. Beard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |in the case you propose above, even if the black hole is
|> |universally implemented, two 'permit' statements, each for a /8 block
|> |(assuming we use the Hinden proposed address space block) would solve this
|> |problem.
|>
|> This is inconsistent with your requirement that ``Router manufacturers
|> MUST ensure that said black hole cannot be deconfigured, turned off, or
|> otherwise overridden in toto;'' You are now saying that all it takes to
|> override the black hole in toto is two more specific routes for the two
|> halves of the address space. As soon as this is pointed out someone will
|> insist that the overriding routes must have some absurdly large prefix length,
|> e.g., /48.
|>
|
|The language concerning what may be required to configure partial override
|for the black hole was quite deliberately crafted so that several
|interpretations are possible;
We aren't talking about a partial override. We are talking about a complete
override which your wording clearly prohibits. If that isn't what you mean
then change the wording.
Dan Lanciani
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
