Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:52:21 PST, Crist Clark said:

> Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And
> that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6

No, they just emit the traffic anyhow. Often it travels an amazing distance
before hitting a router that doesn't have a default route - and if it's one of
those providers that internally routes 1918 addresses of their own it might go
even further ;)

> ULA answer be the same as the IPv4 RFC1918 answer, "I could announce
> those networks for you, but no one else would accept the routes. (And
> I would be ridiculed straight off of NANOG.)" I presume everyone will
> be filtering the ULA prefix(es), link local, loopback, and other
> obvious bogons from their tables. How does this enterprise demand that
> other providers route the ULA prefixes too?

More correctly, the same people who do proper bogon filtering for IPv4 will
quite likely do it for IPv6, and the same people who botch it for IPv4 will
almost certainly botch it worse for IPv6.

Note that this has *quite* different operational semantics than "everyone"..

> If we're talking about routing ULAs within a providers network, I'd
> think providers would love them. Right now, an enterprise can buy a
> "corporate VPN" or layer two network to route "private" addresses.

One has to wonder if the first attempt to multihome a ULA will be accidental
or intentional, or has it already happened?

Attachment: _bin
Description: