Subject: RE: Enforcing unreachability of site local addresses

From: "Michel Py" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:36:34 -0800

> Keith Moore wrote:
> I don't think we need to solve the global routing
> problem for PI addresses to be beneficial. PI
> addresses are extremely useful even if they can only
> be routed by private agreement between networks.
> Trying to make PI addresses be suitable for global
> routing as a pre-condition for having PI addresses
> strikes me as self-defeating. It's nice if it works
> out that way, but it should not be considered a
> necessary condition.

It is not, but asking for PI with no plan to manage the risk of
"privately routed PI" ending up "globally routed PI mess" is a
non-starter. One of the surest ways to kill IPv6 is to make it the same
crud as IPv4 with more bits.

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 11:42:14 -0500

> non-starter. 

why not just say:

---
Users of GUPIs are cautioned that there is currently no known 
feasible way of routing everyone's GUPIs through the global 
Internet.  Therefore it is unreasonable to expect GUPIs
to be globally reachable, and routing of GUPIs between networks
is by bilateral agreement only.

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.

These recommendations may be revised in the future if advances are
made in routing technology. 
---

Is that so difficult?

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:43:35 +0100

> crud as IPv4 with more bits.

We will have to solve the problem of a larger crud with IPv6 than what 
we have in IPv4 anyway.

- kurtis -