Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Daniel Senie <dts () senie com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > > While I think this is an improvement, unless the distribution of ULA-C is no cheaper
> > > and no easier to get than GUA, I still think there is reason to believe that it is likely
> > > ULA-C will become de facto GUA over the long term.
> > >
> > > As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent appropriate protections in
> > > RIR policy.
> >
> > I agree with owen, mostly... except I think we should just push RIR's
> > to make GUA accessible to folks that need ipv6 adress space,
> > regardless of connectiivty to thegreater 'internet' (for some
> > definition of that thing).
> >
> > ULA of all types causes headaches on hosts, routers, etc. There is no
> > reason to go down that road, just use GUA (Globally Unique Addresses).
> >
> > -Chris
>
> Failure to provide an ULA mechanism will result in self assignment from the spaces not yet made available for 
> allocation. Down that road we will find history repeating itself.
>
> The reason I see a use in ULA-C is to ensure there is a way for cooperating organizations
> (whether within or between enterprises) to have addressing that will not overlap for private
> interconnects. If the RIRs will give out the space to end users and not charge a fortune for
> it, there may be a chance of that working. It is less clear whether this is within the

define 'fortune' ? I think currently for a PI /48 it's 1250/yr right?
So... the cost (less really) of a laptop for your newest employee per
year, basically.

That seems quite reasonable (to me). Is that in the range you feel is
acceptable?

> business model or mission of the RIRs, though, to hand out very small chucks of address
> space to a very large number of organizations for address space that will not be routed.

'not be routed' .... I think the RIR's should assign ip space, they
have no idea (and no control) over where/what gets routed. They are a
uniqueness registry really, for ipv6.

> Of course if the ULA approach does gain acceptance, you'll have a LOT easier time
> deciding which blocks of addresses to permit and deny in your BGP sessions and packet
> filters on your borders.

PI for v6 comes from a set block in each RIR, eh?

-Chris