[75808] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Wed Nov 24 22:40:51 2004
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:09:02 -0500
To: NANOG <NANOG@merit.edu>
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
In-Reply-To: <200411250032.iAP0WlRu024784@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 07:32 PM 11/24/2004, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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.
