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: Fri Nov 26 00:55:52 2004 
At 04:46 PM 11/25/2004, [email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 EST, Daniel Senie said:
> 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.

Exactly.  And how many places *still* botch it in the IPv4 world?

And there's no reason I've seen that we should expect *any* different
in the IPv6 world....
We may not. However, without ULA, I question whether people will bother adopting IPv6 at all. If that's what the community desires, then so be it. However, I expect market forces will drive the requirement for ULA. If it's missing, I expect a repeat of another happening with IPv4, that being people picking random address blocks to use.

As for the ingress filtering issue, education and contract terms are two good answers. I'd like to see network operators considering ingress as part of their aggregation router buying decisions, of course.