nanog mailing list archives
Re: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses
From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:25:53 +1100
In message <4BC01459-B53A-4B2C-B75B-47D89550DFC5 () delong com>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:=20 In message <E22A56B3-68F1-4A75-A091-E416800C485B () delong com>, Owen =DeLong writes:=20Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make =ULAreally bad for the internet. =20 Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money =toroute it within their public network between multiple sites owned =bythe same customer. =20=20 That same customer is also going to have enough global address space to be able to reach other global destinations, at least enough space for all nodes that are permitted to access the Internet, if =notmore. Proper global address space ensures that if a global =destinationis reachable, then there is a high probability of successfully =reachingit. The scope of external ULA reachability, regardless of how much money is thrown at the problem, isn't going to be as good as proper global addresses. =20_IF_ they implement as intended and as documented. As you've noted there's a lot of confusion and a lot of people not reading the documents, latching onto ULA and deciding ti's good. =20 It's not a big leap for some company to do a huge ULA deployment saying "this will never connect to the intarweb thingy" and 5-10 =yearslater not want to redeploy all their addressing, so, they start =throwingmoney at getting providers to do what they shouldn't instead of readdressing their networks.=20 IPv4 think. =20 You don't re-address you add a new address to every node. IPv6 is designed for multiple addresses. =20That's a form of re-addressing. It's not removing the old addresses, = but, it is a major undertaking just the same in a large deployment.
I don't see any major difference in the amount of work required to go from disconnected ULA to ULA + PA/PI or ULA + NAT compared to disconnected PI to connected PI. Whether the machines have one or two address is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
For private site interconnect, I'd think it more likely that the provider would isolate the customers traffic and ULA address space =viasomething like a VPN service e.g. MPLS, IPsec. =20One would hope, but, I bet laziness and misunderstanding trumps reason and adherence to RFCs over the long term. Since ULA won't get hard-coded into routers as unroutable (it can't),=20 Actually it can be. You just need a easy switch to turn it off. The router can even work itself out many times. Configure multiple =interfacesfrom the same ULA /48 and you pass traffic for the /48 between those interfaces. You also pass routes for that /48 via those interfaces. =20If you have an easy switch to turn it off, it will get used, thus = meaning that it isn't hard coded, it's just default.
On by default will create a effective deterrent.
=20Owen
-- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka () isc org
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Mark Smith (Oct 20)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Owen DeLong (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: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses Mark Andrews (Oct 21)
- RE: Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses George Bonser (Oct 21)
- Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses Jack Bates (Oct 21)
- 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)