North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery

  • From: Daniel Senie
  • Date: Wed Nov 24 22:41:31 2004 
At 07:32 PM 11/24/2004, [email protected] wrote:


On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:52:21 PST, Crist Clark said:

> Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And
> that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6

No, they just emit the traffic anyhow. Often it travels an amazing distance
before hitting a router that doesn't have a default route - and if it's one of
those providers that internally routes 1918 addresses of their own it might go
even further ;)
Seems to me we wrote a document some years ago about how to address this. If the upstream ISP isn't willing to filter at their edges, then write contract language that the client is required to filter such traffic in THEIR border routers. The typical customer with a few T-1 lines and some small routers could easily afford the CPU power in their routers to implement a few lines of ACL filtering.

This sure seems like a weak reason to scuttle an otherwise useful and desired capability.