the concern i heard wrt ULA-G (and therefore wrt ULA-C upon
with -G is based) is that the filtering recommendations in
RFC 4193 were as unlikely to "work"
as the filtering recommendations in RFC 1597 and RFC 1918.
Given the overwhelming success of RFC 1918 it only requires a very small
percentage of sites leaking routes to make it seem like a big problem.
This is normal. When you scale up anything, small nits happen frequently
enough to become significant issues. But that is not a reason to get rid
of RFC 1918.
The fact that the filtering recommendations of ULA-C and ULA-G have the
same flaws as RFC 1918 is a not sufficient reason to reject them
wholesale.
i realized in
that moment, that ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end
run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some
day, the people who are then responsible for global address
policy and global internet operations, will end the "tyranny
of the core" by which we cripple all network owners in their
available choices of address space, based solely on the
tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system.
but we appear not to be the generation who will make that leap.
I think that even today, if you analyze Internet traffic on a global
scale, you will see that there is a considerable percentage of it which
"bypasses" the core. Let the core use filters to protect the DFZ because
the DFZ is no longer necessary for a workable Internet.
--Michael Dillon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf