Subject: RE: Fwd: IPv6 Scoped Addresses and Routing Protocols

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:08:05 -0700

Tony,

> Tony Hain wrote:
> Maybe the way to solve this is to take the 'must be 0' bits and
> define them as 'locally administered'

That is what we were talking about: site IDs in SL addresses.

> with a clear note that  FE00::/8 will be blocked on the
> public net.

How can you guarantee this? If customers demand their ISPs to leak SL
addresses because customers see SL as a PI address they can't get
otherwise, ISPs will take the money at some point.

It is a terrible responsibility to embed everyone-gets-one-PI-address in
the addressing architecture. If the policy groups decide to give a PI
address to everyone, their call not us me thinks.

> This would allow sites that want the hassle of coordinating multiple
> private interconnects to do whatever they want (since they will
> anyway if the implementations allow it), without leaving any
> expectations that these are in any way globally unique.

The way I see it is: If they are not globally unique, it serves no
purpose. If they are, the fact that they will or will not be seen in the
global routing table is a matter of money, not of addressing
architecture.

So, this can't happen now because there is too big of a temptation. How
do we suppress the temptation? By providing people that want PI
addresses and multihomers with an _aggregatable_ solution.

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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:37:31 -0400

> otherwise, ISPs will take the money at some point.

so what?  an ISP can sell its own routing table space (and router
cpu time) if it wishes.  that doesn't mean that other ISPs have
to propagate those advertisements, and there's a fair amount of
incentive for them to not do so.

> the addressing architecture. 

why do you think it's not an equally terrible responsible to say 
"nobody gets a global address prefix unless it's tied to a provider"?

> If the policy groups decide to give a PI

what makes you think that the policy groups are better qualified than
we are to make such a decision?  we have enough trouble understanding
the various technical implications (at all protocol layers and above)
of such a decision - the policy groups are even less knowledgable.
 
Keith