Jeroen Massar wrote:
As such, what is the 'local' part again, how local is it really? And how
is ULA-C then different from PI? Why bother people with this ULA-C thing
when they really need PI in the first place? Which they can already get
for $100/year from ARIN and which will be guaranteed unique, just like
all other address space from the RIR's.
Jeroen,
PI space is *not* available, *at any price*, to small sites.
ARIN (and generally, RIR) policy for the allocation of PI space (space
assigned directly from the RIR to end sites that they can announce into
the DFZ) is based on the assumption that any such space, once allocated,
can add an additional route to the BGP table of hundreds of thousands of
routers across the globe. Therefore, such policy must be conservative
in handing out such blocks.
A need has been put forward for registered unique IPv6 address space
that is not intended to be advertised into the DFZ. One viable way to
meet this need is with ULA-C. Another way would be with a new class of
"private PI" space out of a dedicated block that DFZ operators would not
accept routes from.
If you'd like to advocate we create RIR policy for private PI space
instead of doing ULA-C, please put forth your arguments for why it would
be better. Or, if you think that the need presented is too
insignificant to be worth standardizing
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt for, fine. But please quit telling
us that we don't need ULA-C because we can just go get PI space today.
-Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
