> 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 much as I appreciate the limitations of laissez-faire economics, I don't see anything particularly wrong with it in this particular case. the fact that ISPs can make a buck off of selling an entry in their routing table doesn't mean they can sell significant numbers of additional entries - at last not unless a significant breakthrough in routing computation is discovered (entirely possible, but I'll believe in it when the router vendors have it in shipping product). the real question is whether ISPs will honor SL prefixes in the absence of explicit compensation to do so. My guess (based on current technology) is "no", but they're welcome to do so if they can manage to deal with the flood. also, in the IPv4 world there is a sort of slippery slope - there is no magical number of prefix bits, and no designated bit pattern, that distinguishes one kind of network from another. so it requires some justification to block advertisements of some prefixes of length N while honoring advertisements of other prefixes of length N. and it's easy to have a "what's one more prefix bit among friends?" attitude. But IPv6 does have very visible distinctions, and doesn't normally delegate on arbitrary bit boundaries, which makes it easier for an ISP to push back on every prefix in a given category. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
