Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke 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.
>
> I know for a fact that an extremely large tier 1 routed RFC1918 address space for an extremely large cable company at 
> one time (and no, I don't mean 2547 or anything like that).  I have no idea if this is still occurring, but when this 
> very large cable company needed to use more private addresses they actually would ask the tier 1 for an assignment in 
> order to avoid collision.
>
> I don't see the problem with ULA though, sure, someone will route it, but not everyone, just those getting paid to.  
> It's actually the perfect solution to routing table bloat as there is a financial relationship between the parties 
> that announce space and the networks that carry it.
Only until there are two parties getting paid by two other parties to route it and they agree to exchange those routes 
without compensation in order to benefit their mutual customers who want to reach each other. From there, the problem 
mushrooms rapidly.

Owen