Roger Jorgensen wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Eliot Lear wrote: > <snip> >>> Of course, if everyone just used PI, none of this would be an issue. >>> >> At this point it is plain to see that ULA-C is nothing but PI address >> space, because the IETF is in no position to enforce otherwise. So >> please, let's just call it what it is. > > it is NOT the same, there are several differences and some of them are > not technical but more manager/non-technical ways of viewing things. > > * PI are ment to be used on internet
False, they are "globally unique IPv6 addresses". Where you use them, nobody cares as they are meant to be used everywhere. Just like ASN's and everything else that the RIR's provide. They are "globally unique" and therefor allow you to interconnect to other organizations, if those are on "The Internet" or just local. Just check the "Prefix In Use" kind of tools, they show that a lot of PI space is not visible on the Internet, and even then, being available in BGP doesn't say that those blocks are actually routed further than the router which routes it into /dev/null or the firewall which blocks everything or runs it into a honeypot. > * ULA-C/G are NOT ment to be used on internet (think we can forget the > point that some might want todo it really, the chances are low and even > managers will understand that it aint supposed to be done, most managers > probably even understand RFC1918 ....) The chances of people wanting to use ULA-C/G on the Internet are really high. There is *always* a need to use them on "the Internet", even if that "Internet" is only an interconnection between several organizations. At one point or another you will most likely be connecting to an organization that is on the Internet and that doesn't want to participate/do difficult with ULA-kind of addresses and then you are stuck. Why make "ULA" so special and prone to be used on the Internet anyway after a while, why burden people with it? > * PI are the same as PA, there are NO real difference except on how you > get it and the size of the block, it is what Paul Dixie have called UA > (unique addresses), nothing else Paul Vixie indeed labeled that correct. The only difference is the size indeed and who gets them. Also PI is supposed to be assigned to one single end-site, while PA is allocated to one big organization that sub-assigns to it's own organizational units/customers. > * ULA-C/G are something completly different, it is more like RFC1918 > space with some extra features, > - the size (amount of IPs) UA does that > - global unique so the current pain anyone with large network have when > they are interconnecting, merging due to fusions or other reasons dont > exist UA does that > - anyone can, IF the ULA-C/G holder want to, resolve the IP in any given > ULA-C/G block through the global DNS system (a very very nice thing for > everyone that hate the pain split-DNS give you...additional administration) Please explain me how you are going to do *forward DNS* also. You know, most people type www.google.com, not the ip6.arpa ones and without the first, the latter is useless. You have to connect the forward zones anyway, so why not connect the reverse ones also. This has to be split DNS anyway, as a lot of companies are not willing to connect their internal systems in ANY way to the global Internet or let alone, expose those hostnames to that global Internet thing. Of course it is a lot of fun to be able to resolve big-red-button.oval-room.whitehouse.gov and at least know where to look for. Hint for security control freaks: DNS tunneling, you know it is fun :) And when you are able from your local (ULA) host to resolve a global DNS name you can do exactly that and more. Also what happens when a local guy types "www.google.com", do they get routed into oblivion or do you think they will not want to connect to that or to Wikipedia and a lot of resources on the Internet? Or are you going to use 2 IP addresses or more per host and create even a bigger management hell? Stuffing *LOCAL* reverse DNS in the *GLOBAL* DNS doesn't make any sense. Either keep it totally local or keep it totally global (thus UA). So how exactly is this ULA thing different from the UA (PI&PA) space that is already available? Why bother with ULA when one day you might most likely want to connect to the Internet anyway and cause pain then? Why lay that pain unto people? The only real difference I see is that it is a well known block that people can force to not route, thus making a 2nd kind of Internet Citizen and a monopoly situation for the folks who can and the ones who can't get UA space. Now I do see another use for this kind of address space, but then it should not be called this way. It could be used for ID/LOC solutions, where these kind of addresses are Explicit-non-DFZ addresses. But if that is the reason for what folks want to use them, as that is what I am sort of reading between the lines as actual real usage has still not been identified, then please just state that. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
