Jari Arkko wrote:
Lixia,
I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my
understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived
difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see,
does not exist.
Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by
whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is
labeled.
Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling
may not correspond to what is actually done with
it.
If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if
you don't want them.
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going
to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C
because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf