Thus spake "Scott Leibrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
With the current draft, that is correct. With Paul's proposed changes of
27 Jun, they definitely aggregate at the LIR and RIR levels, making it
much harder to defend the position that they won't end up in the DFZ.
I'm not quite following your logic here. If ARIN allocates ULA-G space
from a distinct netblock, how does that make it any harder for transit
providers to filter routes from fc00::/7, reduce their incentive to do so,
or create an incentive not to?
If they can be aggregated, there's no reason _not_ to route them in the DFZ.
With no technical incentive to filter, the financial incentive to _not_
filter will win.
ULA-L and ULA-C have a pseudorandom network part specifically to avoid any
possibility of aggregation, in hopes that'll be sufficient technical
incentive for them to be filtered. When you start divvying up those bits
and giving them meaning, particularly a hierarchical meaning based on the
RIR and LIR that assigned them, you're no longer working with "local"
anything.
It's bad enough that ULA-C is reinventing PI space; we don't need ULA-G
reinventing PA space.
S
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
