Subject: RE: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:46:58 -0800

> Keith Moore wrote:
> why not just say:
> ISPs in the public Internet SHOULD filter traffic to
> and from GUPIs, and SHOULD filter GUPIs from routing
> advertisements that are sent to other ISPs.

You're the only one that believes this would work, I'm afraid. ISPs do
what their customers pay them to do, including leaking GUPIs in the
global routing table. If this your idea of managing the risk, please
find something else. Even if you put a MUST, it would not change the
fact that money talks louder than RFCs.

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: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:04:08 -0500

> global routing table. 

as far as I can tell, for the most part, ISPs follow the constraints
in the protocol specifications.   

frankly I don't see any way of having globally unique addresses that
are inherently unroutable.  and I don't know why ISPs are inherently
less trustworthy than other parties.

and I don't know why an ISP would accept advertisements for GUPIs from
its peers unless it was paid (well) to do so.

about all we can do is define the protocols. it's very difficult to
build mechanisms that force people to adhere to those definitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------