> > > I've been staring at this for three days, and I think the > > > answer (in the current state of the BGP art) is "yes", or > > > at least the risk that it is "yes" is unacceptably high. > > > Just stuffing some probably-unique bits into a SL is not > > > going to generate aggregatable addresses; it's going to > > > generate entropy in the routing table. > > > > the premise has to be that SL + site-ids are NOT going to > > get advertised to the public routing tables. if there's not > > a mechanism for preventing this now, we need to invent one. > > but that's not a reason to force or even encourage sites > > to use non-unique prefixes, especially when SLs without > > site-ids cause problems for distributed applications. > > Define "public". Given the peerwise distribution > of routes, isn't the distinction of "public" > rather arbitrary? If I convince my provider to > route my site local prefix across their backbone > (but not leaked outside their AS's), is that a > violation? What about if my provider then convinces > their upstream provider to do likewise to extend > my reach? Is that public? And how likely is it that > ISP's would pay attention to any such strictures if > they figured it was an easy way to build what is > for all intents and purposes a VPN of the MPLS > variety?
my opinion is that the space in an ISP's routing tables and the cpu time of their routers belongs to the ISP and the ISP can (and will) do whatever it wishes with it, as long as they keep their agreements. the fact that these are limited resources will quite naturally result in pressure to limit the scope of advertisement of non-aggregatable addresses. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
