On 20-sep-2007, at 14:42, Thomas Narten wrote:
A key point here is that when it comes to sales and marketing, it's
problematic when your competitor says "we offer X," if you yourself
don't. Given the commodity nature of ISP service, it doesn't take long
before everyone is offering similar terms, even if there are
technically bad implications
[...]
The concern is that pretty soon, everyone will route ULAs because they
feel like they are at a competitive disadvantage if others are doing
so and they are not. And that would a huge mess.
The point you're missing is that one ISP can't provide global
reachability for a prefix, you only get this if everyone cooperates.
That just isn't going to happen unless someone with a huge amount of
clout is going to force the issue. If Google wants to be reachable
over ULA space then people may open up their filters. If it's IBM or
Boeing, nobody is going to care.
And to people who can get PI or PA space, there is no point in
forcing the issue, because even if they're successful in the end,
it's going to be painful and expensive for them, too.
But even if it happens: who cares?
And what if only _some_ of the ISPs routed them? We'd still have a
mess, because now we'd have a Balkanized Internet, where univeral
connectivity wasn't the norm anymore.
That sounds like an apt description of the current IPv6 internet. It
works well in Europe and Asia, but North America is a wasteland:
$ ftp ftp.ietf.org
Trying 2610:a0:c779:1a::9c9a:1095...
ftp: connect to address 2610:a0:c779:1a::9c9a:1095: Operation timed out
Trying 156.154.16.149...
Connected to ftp.ietf.org.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf