nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:33:28 -0700
On Apr 26, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 24 Apr 2010 21:01, Mark Smith wrote:On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:48:18 -0400 Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep using globals that now aren't yours?use pi space, request it from your local friendly RIR.I was hoping that wasn't going to be your answer. So do you expect every residential customer to get a PI from an RIR?The vast majority of residential customers have no idea what "globals" or "PI" are. They use PA and they're fine with that--despite being forcibly renumbered every few hours/days. (Many ISPs deliberately tune their DHCP servers to give residential customers a different address each time for "market segmentation" reasons.)
The majority of residential cusotmers bitch about paying $20/month for what they have and are not planning to multihome. This was a comment about multihoming. FWIW, this residential user has PI from an RIR (v4 and v6) and is multihomed using it. It works fine.
The only semi-rational justification for ULA-C is that organizations privately internetworking with other organizations are scared of ULA-R collisions. However, PI solves that problem just as readily. If one cannot afford or qualify for PI, or one wants a non-PI prefix due to delusions of better security, one can use a private deconfliction registry, e.g. <http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/>.
The claim being made which I was attempting to refute had nothing to do with residential. IT was that ULA-C with NAT at the border would allow an organization to semi-transparently switch back and forth between providers. This is a (somewhat) common practice in IPv4 for delivering (degraded) multihoming. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01], (continued)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Jack Bates (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Andrews (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hoyle (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hoyle (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Christopher Morrow (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Jack Bates (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Stephen Sprunk (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- RE: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hain (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Bill Stewart (Apr 29)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 29)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mans Nilsson (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] sthaug (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Richard Barnes (Apr 22)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] bmanning (Apr 21)