On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:05 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > * ULA-C/G are NOT ment to be used on internet > > OTOH, there's no way for the IETF or RIRs to stop it from happening. I'm > not saying it will, but it is irresponsible to claim it won't when there's > no mechanism to enforce that. >
<sarcasm> What is the mechanism to force operators to carry ULA prefixes? </sarcasm> Scalability-issues and operator's desire to combat abuse will keep ULA out of the DFZ. If there were no limits on inter-domain-routing and we had the ability to verify the authenticity of every prefix announced none of this would be an issue. Then we could all have our own prefixes and use them as we please. Private or public. Until such mechanisms are in place ULA-prefixes are likely to be rejected by the majority of transit operators. ULA-blocks split in their individual /48s (due to incompetence, accident or malice) won't fit in any current or near-future routing hardware nor is there a reliable mechanism to manage exceptions on a mass-scale. ULA-C/G might be treated equal to PI some time in the future, but not until there's a routing architecture able to cope with true PI-for-all. If we're really concerned about end-users shouldn't we, as long as we're unable to solve the basic architectural problems, instead work to eliminate the arguments supporting the use of the various forms of ULA or even PI? (Should renumbering still be an issue regardless of the size of a site? Why do we let rogue domain-registries and registrars take hostages and limit portability? etc. etc...???) /per -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
