Alain, Please define "real PI (by real I mean registered)". Not having seen the draft that defines it, I can't evaluate your argument.
Brian Alain Durand wrote: > > On Nov 4, 2003, at 12:48 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:45:07PM -0800, Alain Durand wrote: > >> > >> As I explain in a previous message, this last property is not verified > >> by the hinden/haberman draft, as when those addresses leak, > >> they would create untraceable problems, very similar to the one > >> caused by RFC1918 leaks today. > > > > But could we ever stop leakage? > > > > And would it not be more dangerous if hijacked or randomly picked > > prefixes > > leaked instead of well-known (probabilistically unique) prefixes? > > You're assuming that the alternative to hinden/haberman is hijacking > random prefixes. > I don't. I see allocation of real PI (by real I mean registered) a more > serious alternative. > The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that the > issue > with the hinden/haberman draft is that those prefixes cannot be trace > back, > making them as good (or as bad) as ambiguous. > > I just saw a press release from a company building high speed network > chips > that claim they can process up to a million route at 40 Gb/s... > so I'm honestly thinking that handing out PI to people who can justify > the need > is not as scary as it sounds, at least it would enable us to wait until > we get something > from Multi6. > > - Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
