Subject: RE: one question...

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:29:58 -0800

Margaret,

> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> - GUPI addresses may also be used to communicate over
>   private links with other GUPI-addressed networks.
>   In other words, several companies may use GUPI
>   addresses to communicate with each other over
>   a shared extranet.  These types of networks are
>   quite common in some industries for suppliers/
>   customers or data center/clients.  This wouldn't
>   and shouldn't require that multiple companies
>   share a GUPI prefix, just that they have routes
>   that point to each other.

Yes.

> - You may have different "levels" of GUPI addresses within
>   a single network...  Some devices may use addresses
>   that are filtered at the department level, some
>   may be filtered at the corporate level, and
>   some may be filtered at the extranet level, for
>   example.

Yes, but this is not specific to GUPI.

> - Some companies may pay their ISPs to globally route their
>   GUPI addresses.  I know that some people don't
>   want this to be possible, but I'm not sure why.

Explosion of the routing table. No-no.

>   I agree that we should only advise this if we can
>   come up with an aggregable method for allocating
>   GUPI addresses.

I disagree. We should not advise this for any reason.

The reason I proposed a method for aggregatable GUPIs is for the RIRs or
whoever would assign these addresses to get a jumpstart at doing it, as
it would be very similar to the final goal which is globally unique
*and* globally routable. But one problem at a time. We are not ready for
global PI yet, aggregatable or not.

Let me make myself clear that I will sabotage my own aggregatable
proposal if there are no guarantees about the non-routability.

The one thing that won't fly is to pervert the use of FEC0::/10 for
globally routable purposes. It is not why IANA allocated that prefix. It
would be simpler to ask for a new prefix, when time has come.

Besides, I will point out that if GUPIs become globally routable, people
that wanted private addresses will use 2002:0A00::/24 and we will be
back to square one except that we would have created a big PI mess in
the global routing table.

The fact that globally unique site-locals are aggregatable or not does
not change the need to enforce their un-routability.

What could reach consensus today is GUSL: Globally unique site-locals.
- Globally unique, free, no registration (Charlie Perkins)
- GUSL blackholed by default (Bob Hinden)
- GUSL BGP routes discarded by default (Michel Py)

Optional, if it reaches consensus and if someone implements them:
Globally unique, geographically aggregatable, registration needed. Lots
of ifs, should not delay process if consensus is reached on what is
above.

One problem at a time, please.

> There will continue to be application-level and mobility
> issues with these addresses, or any type of private or
> filtered addresses. The problems are reduced by the fact
> that the addresses are not ambiguous, but the problems
> are not all eliminated. However, it seems that people
> _will_ use filtering to create private networks. The
> best we can do is try to provide a solution that
> mitigates the damage.

I agree with the assessment, time to be realistic in what could reach
consensus.

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: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:04:38 -0500

> would be simpler to ask for a new prefix, when time has come.

I agree that FEC0::/10 should not be used for this purpose.

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:10:58 -0500

Hi Michel,

>I agree with the assessment, time to be realistic in what could reach

Since all we've had so far is a discussion between a few people
during a vacation week for many in the U.S., I think it would be
premature to try to claim any sort of consensus.

I would personally (not speaking as a chair, because I haven't
had a chance to discuss this with Bob), like to see some individual
Internet Drafts that flesh out the proposals that people have made
to the mailing list.

If folks could get drafts out in the next week or two, it might
actually be possible to start an in depth discussion comparing
different proposals.

Margaret