[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Re: article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

[bmanning at karoshi.com]

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:47:28AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> bmanning at karoshi.com wrote:
> >On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:30:01PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> >>Other than by issuing bogon lists, where the ULA-centra prefixes will 
> >>be noted.  You certainly can't stop it or any other type of ipv6 
> >>address from becoming PI.  But you can stop it from being useful PI 
> >>space, which is all you need to do.
> >>
> >>Nick
> >
> >	you, my friend, have an over inflated view of your ability 
> >	to effect "useful" for others.  imho of course.
> 
> I make no claim of any such ability :-)

	er... perhaps I misread.  you stated; "you can stop it from 
	being useful PI space, which is all you need to do." 
	i understand this as you (party Q) being able to effect any
	communications between myself (party R) and Gert (party S)...
	the single time this is effective is when party Q is in the
	transit path btwn R & S. 
> 
> The point is, if a block is carved out and marked specifically as being 
> non-routable on the public v6 internet, it will have degraded 
> connectivity to some degree or other.

	do i care?  does that effect the usefulness of a given prefix
	if some ISP someplace filters out (refuses to listen) to the 
	announcements? i posit that:
		a) i have zero influence on your operational behaviour
		   when i have zero business relationship w/ you
		b) you have the ability to set whatever policies you like
		   for packet acceptance into your network and packet 
		   egress from your network.
> 
> On a related issue, I'd be interested to know what the reachability 
> degradation was like for the last of the 3ffe:: space after 6/6/6?  You 
> didn't happen to do any measurements on it?

	for those parties still using the space, it is useful.
	i suspect that parties who filter prefixes "degrade" their clients
	ability to reach nodes/content in those filtered ranges. of course
	some clients utilize other tools (VPNs, tunnels, etc) to bypass
	crippled ISP thinking. (from the POV of the client ... kind of like
	many hotel networks)

	your general qustion (prefix reachability) is based on (imho again)
	a flawed premise...  if i may, could you clarify the two endpoints for
	such a reachability study?  
> 
> Nick,
> psychically effecting usefulness all over the v6 internet

	got me there...  can you also bend spoons w/ your mental powers? :)

--bill