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

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> 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?

Some designs for the "carrier NATs" that are supposed to tide us over
from from v4 depletion through v6 deployment would seem to be an open
door for this scenario.


> > 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?

No. There's too much complexity associated with multiple ISPs
negotiating private routing policies while VPNs work very well without
needing special services from the ISP.

Owen has this notion that there's a natural evolutionary path that
will bring about some circumstance where two particular ISPs find it
advantageous to swap ULA routes. That same driving force would
presumably lead those ISPs to interact with a third and so on until
the use of ULA addresses on the public Internet was a defacto
standard.

If there's a credible scenario where two ISPs and the folks paying
them would find such a course of action preferable to the myriad other
options for solving the given problem, I haven't heard it yet. If such
a scenario exists, it's not obvious.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com  bill () herrin us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004