On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:45:47AM -0800, Michel Py wrote: > > Steven Blake wrote: > > This is a business issue between customers and ISPs > > and is none of the IETF's business IMHO. > > I don't think so. > > First, there is no business relation between the customer and the > carrier in the middle of the cloud. > > Second, history has proven that sometimes ISPs don't filter routes; if > they did we would not see a route for 10.0.0.0/8 in the DFZ. > > Ambiguity is a fail-safe for routes that leak into the DFZ, even though > they were not supposed to, and for ISPs that don't filter traffic, even > though they were supposed to. In order to remove ambiguity, we must > replace the fail-safe it provides by something else, and that something > else is IMHO a requirement that router vendors implement the necessary > filters as being default configuration.
What technical problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to prevent inadvertent leakage of prefixes? Or are you trying to impose aggregatible prefixes on institutions that may be able to afford other arrangements? Regards, =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steven L. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ericsson IP Infrastructure +1 919-472-9913 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
