> Eliot Lear wrote: > I guess my concern is that ISPs end up routing the address > space in Bob's proposal and that we'll have another PI problem. > So while there's nothing wrong with Bob's proposal in theory > (indeed I prefer it vastly to the other SL approaches), if > customers believe they have stable addresses we could end up > right back where we were in the early '90s. I don't see this > happening for DSL customers but it could happenfor medium to > large size businesses who have the power of the purse. It is possible to write sufficient restrictions and avoid both the drift towards announcing /48 in the DMZ and using the unique local addresses in a NATv6 configuration. The requirement is that the site local replacement be "special". We can for example request that backbone routers ignore announces that fall in the special prefix unless a /48 has been explicitly. As a result, even if someone convinces their local ISP, they will not be able to get connectivity to the whole Internet, and the addresses will not be usable as "globally routed PI." In fact, we should do that. -- Christian Huitema
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
