On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
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.
I'd agree that, ideally speaking, one would prefer using simple
filtering rules.
However as Jari already pointed out, whatever label one puts on a
prefix may not correspond to what is done with it, *especially* as
time goes.
(a motto I heard from my high school son, "the only thing that does
change in life is change" :-)
and I would not attempt to bundle opinions regarding UCL-C and PI (I
saw Ted already showed an example). Furthermore, we are all in this
continuing process of understanding their implications in this
complex, exciting, and constantly changing Internet.
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