Keith Moore writes:
> > 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.
Right -- unless they can make a buck off of it.
As I understand it, we don't have anything that
really approaches a "public network" where global
routes are just advertised. Whether routes are
advertised or not is much more of a business
decision than a common weal obligation.
If the business pressures are such that with
stupid router tricks(tm) you can make more
money on less infrastructure even though it's
not a globally healthy thing to do, I think we
better not delude ourselves. Site locals
definitely toe this line.
Alas, the urge to overlay networks seems too
strong. "What holds up the network? Why, it's
networks all the way down!"
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
