> > Keith Moore wrote: > > no, this isn't what my goals are. I don't want to make > > FEC0::/10s unique, nor do I want to make them globally > > routable. I want to discourage use of that prefix, and > > provide a separate set of addresses which are globally > > unique and routable off-site by private arrangement. > > If at some later date we figure out how to make them > > globally routable, so much the better. > > So what is the difference between this new GUPI block and GUSLs, except > that you want a possible evolution to globally routable for the new GUPI > block?
problems with GUSLs as an alternative to GUPIs: - the proposed uses of PI globals change too many assumptions about how SLs were to be used to reuse the FEC0::/10 prefix for that purpose. - there were too many conflicting or intractable assumptions about SLs anyway - we need PI globals that can be routed between sites by private agreement anyway. > >> Do you call recommending a default blackhole in > >> routers an architectural limitation? > > > not sure. here's the question - let's say that 3 years > > from now we figure out how to make routing of GUPIs scale > > globally. having biased the last three years' worth of > > routers to filter them, how do we then upgrade the routers > > to not filter them? > > The obvious answer is that we create a new block _then_, not now. no, because we need the block now to solve the problems with SLs. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
