Paul Vixie wrote: > the competing visions as i understand them are "random-prefix ULA-C makes > it > impossible to postprocess one's log files on computers outside the > connectivity realm where they were gathered, makes recourse against > spammers > and ddos-for-hire crews even harder, and moves the hijacking problem from > the > realm where RPKI can help some day to the realm of ``i got it from > agnes''(*)" > and "assigned-prefix ULA-C makes it likely that the PI/PA separation > regime > will collapse, and take the internet down in flames."
One comment I neglected to make in my previous response was, that encouraging the use of PI, even when used on the far side of PA NAT, means that the identity of (and NOC contact info for) anyone who accidentally leaks packets with a source for which there is no route, into the DFZ, is more likely to be discoverable, by mere virtue of the assignments and registration that go along with PI space. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
