{appologies if this is a resend}
>>>>> "Alexandru" == Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> writes:
Alexandru> Well yes, let me try to understand what do you mean by these big
picture
Alexandru> questions?
1) what use cases need topologically significant prefixes with default routes
2) what use cases need to exchange routes to locally configured
Non-Connected Network prefixes (whether RIR NCN, or ULA)
Those two situations need to be seperated.
They are not the same thing, or the same problem.
In case #1, one needs to further split this into
1a) managed situations where all systems are under the control
of a single administrator (aka "intra-AS")
1b) unmanaged situations where an individual lends another individual
some bandwidth.
(1b) seems really easy in today's multiply NAT'ed IPv4, because the NAT
erases all evidence that first individual might have violated
an AUP. (I disagree with those AUPs)
--
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
pgpIUKqHP5Oql.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
