nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:37:02 +1030
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 06:38:33 +0200 Graham Beneke <graham () apolix co za> wrote:
On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by the same customer.Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?I have seen this in some small providers. Doesn't last long since the chance of collision is high. It then becomes a VPN.Part 3 will be when that same provider (or some other provider in the same boat) takes the next step and starts trading routes of ULA space with other provider(s).Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get caught out by collisions. The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
I don't think there is a difference. The very small providers are the ones who make the stupid mistakes, it's the larger ones that do the right thing because it is in their operational interests. Operational competence, and the resulting increased reliability, is one of the attributes customers of ISPs value highly. If any of the Tier-1s don't route ULA address space, then it is useless compared to global addresses that *are* routed by *all* the Tier-1s. As the Tier-1s also hire competent networking people, they'll also understand the scaling issues of the ULA address space, and why it shouldn't be globally routed. Competent networking people also exist at the lower tiers as well. If operators just blindly accept and implement what sales people tell them to, then those operators aren't operators. They're mindless drones - and the rest of the people operating the Internet will protect the Internet from them. Darwin eventually gets rid of those operators and the ISP that employ them. Since ULAs could be used as DoS attack sources, they'll also likely be filtered out by most people as per BCP38. Regards, Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses Mark Andrews (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Mark Andrews (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 25)
- Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Mark Andrews (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Matthew Kaufman (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Graham Beneke (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses Adrian Chadd (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses Joel Jaeggli (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ? Unique local addresses Mark Smith (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Mark Smith (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Brandon Ross (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses William Herrin (Oct 21)
- SixXS ULA Registry clarifications / questions / comments (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Jeroen Massar (Oct 21)
- Re: SixXS ULA Registry clarifications / questions / comments (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses) Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Mark Andrews (Oct 20)