> From: Paul Vixie <paul@xxxxxxx>
> 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.
This comment interested me, but I want to make sure I understand what
you're getting at. Fully appreciating your comments seems to require
reading between the lines somewhat, so if I make a mistake (below) in
understanding you, please correct it.
What I hear you saying, in your references to the DFZ/core, is that you
aren't happy with the notion that there's a large part of the internetwork
in which more or less all destinations are reachable? If so, in effect,
you're visualizing a system in which reachability is less ubiquitous? I.e.
for a given destination address X, there will be significant parts of the
internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X - and not
because of access controls which explicitly prevent it, but simply because
that part of the internetwork doesn't care to carry routing information for
that destination. Is that right?
Your comment about "available choices of address space" is more opaque.
Are you saying that you'd like parts of the address space to be explicitly
given over to such 'not globally routed' functionality? (I assume that you
are happy with uniqueness, i.e. you're not proposing allocating the same
chunk of address space to two different entities, right?)
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf