On 27-nov-04, at 22:45, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
the short version of my rebuttal is: "those are not your bits to waste."
They are if my ISP assigns them to me. :-)
er... not really. they are the ISPs.
Well, the ISP doesn't "own" them either. But they're assigned to me, which gives me the right to waste them as I see fit within the limits of the address assignment policy. (Which allows considerable leeway towards bit wasting in IPv6.)
second, let me add, "and it's not your routing table, either."
I have no idea what this means.
if you have no idea aobut the impact of address assignment on routing tables,
I think anyone who has been present during the address policy sessions in the last few RIPE meetings can testify to the fact that I certainly have ideas about this. What I mean is that the remark that something is not my routing table makes no sense to me. Nobody owns the abstract global routing table. On the other hand, obviously I own the memory in my private box that happens to have a particular instance of the global routing table in it.
then you really should spend some time implementing routing policies -before- you burn cycles telling others about how they should run their networks. no one is stoping you from implementing whatever prefix acceptance/forwarding policy you may chose to implemenet for -YOUR- customers. it is a -local- effect. just stop trying to tell others how to manage their routign tables.
Unless I'm experiencing blackouts, I haven't been telling people how to manage their routing tables. The trouble with the routing table is that it's not really manageable: in theory, you can filter out the stuff that you don't like, but in practice this can't be done without breaking reachability, so we're all forced to live with the sum of all crap that anyone feels fit to inject in BGP on some corner of the planet. That has been my point all along: we should empower operators to make reasonable tradeoffs between optimum path selection and routing resource consumption.