Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thomas Narten wrote: > > Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > >> Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When > >> that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes > >> get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not > >> rocket science to guess that networks will favor their own customers, > >> the networks with which they have explicit agreements, and the networks > >> from which their customers derive the most value. That probably puts > >> most ULAs and PIs fairly far down in the preference list. > >> > > > > Actually, my read of arguments coming from those opposed to ULAs is > > that a good number of folk are worried that the some, if not many, > > ULAs would be pretty high up on the preference list. I.e., those > > hosting content that has become popular. And owners of those services > > will simply go to ISPs and say "route this, or I'll find someone else > > who will". And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will > > fall over each other to be the first to say "why certainly we'd love > > your business". And then the simple notion of filtering "all ULA > > space" goes out the window and we have huge mess, that involves even > > more pressures to accept more routes (despite the limitations on > > technology), etc. > > > > You may disagree with that scenario, but it is one that does concern > > people in the operational community and is one reason why the proposal > > is currently wedged. > > > Actually I don't disagree with the scenario at all; in fact I think it's > exactly what I envision. I just don't see why it's such a horrible > thing. Does "Balkanization of the Internet" mean anything to you? > What I see as happening when the owners of those services go to ISPs and > say "we'd like to have these ULAs be routed" is this: The ISPs say > "Great, and we'd love to route them for you. However, as we are sure > you know, routing table space is scarce, and routing updates are > expensive, and ULAs aren't aggregatable. So it costs a lot to route > them, not just for us but for other ISPs also. There are brokers who > lease routing table space in ISPs all over the world, and they'll > sublease a routing table slot for your ULA prefix - for a price. But > you'll be competing with lots of services for a small number of routing > table entries, and they go to the highest bidders. " With all due respect, what ivory tower are you living in? I really think you need to go to an RIR meeting sometime and actually _listen_ to what is said and have a _dialog_ with some of those operators you have been so quick to dismiss in previous postings. You might find that some of them are actually trying to keep the Internet working and believe as much as you do in an open Internet for all... They whole idea that we can have a market of routing slots and that people will pay for routability is a nice idea, except that after 10+ years of talking about it, no one has even the remotest idea of how to make it happen in practice. Well, not unless we have a new world order, ISPs (and the entire DFZ) become subject to significant regulation where policies about routing slots can be set, etc. Is that where you think we need to go? There are certainly parties that would be thrilled to have the Internet move in that direction... But be careful what you wish for... Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf