[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Tue May 29 19:31:05 CEST 2007
> ULA-C sounds to me like a request to the guys who spin silicon to help > people keep from screwing up their router configs. If someone can't > manage to filter their BGP such that they keep some (or all) of their > space private, I don't see why Cisco, Juniper, et al., need to do > that for them. or that the router vendors will do a more reliable job of it, given the complexity of knowing what is a site border and what is not, especially when folk are saying that there are actually multiple entities inside the border. and do we really want the vendors to hard-code address filters in the sillycone? this is the path on which site-local died, and the death was a good thing. RFC 1925 2(11) “Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.” randy
- Previous message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]