On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Tony Li <tony...@tony.li> wrote: > > Hi, > >> 1. Why, in the first place, did people allow sites to inject PI >> addresses in DFZ? Why not simply reject PI in DFZ, limiting their use >> strictly inside a site? > > > Because that doesn't solve the multi-homed site problem.
I'd believe/hope that there could have been solutions for multi-homing even with keeping this scenario, if people would have enough research before ever starting to distribute PI addresses. >> 2. As to sites that migrated across ISPs, why not simply throw away >> old PA addresses injected into a new ISP that is not responsible for >> service to such foreign addresses? > > > This is what normally happens. > > >> 3. Is there any slightest chance that the authority (ICANN? IETF?) >> resume to mandate such strict rules as above to bring back the >> situation where it ought to have been? > > > Not without a credible solution to the multi-homed site problem. > > Tony I'd get a (ungrounded?) feeling that people themselves generated problems and try to sweep it up with second-hand measure. There's a proverb in my country: "To remedy the barn after a cow is stolen" "Smashed to the cheek in downtown, and spit in the river in the outskirt." Considering all the pains that the whole community/industry has to go through this series of aftermath remedy, I wished a considerably smaller effort right in the early beginning might have eliminated this tiny hole in the bank. -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
