RE: IPV6 renumbering painless?

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > I still think that we should pursue making the design work and not
> > > adopt
> > > cruft as standards (ULA).
> >
> > ULAs aren't cruft. They serve a purpose. If you don't need them, don't
> > use them and they won't get in your way.
> ULAs aren't cruft so long as providers do not start exchanging ULA routes
> in the general routing table.  When economics start forcing this issue,
> then
> ULAs become a crufty form of PI space.  Since I believe the economics will
> force this issue sooner rather than later, I regard ULAs as cruft whether
> you agree or not.
Your basic argument is that people really want PI space, and as long as the
ISPs continue to bias the RIR policies against organized PI space there will
be pressure for a grey-market in anything that can be used as PI. A
structured and manageable, non-swamp but non-perfect-aggregation approach to
PI is described in draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt. Comments welcome.

Tony