On 2011-09-27 15:36 , Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
> assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
> (e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
> would need internal/closed IPv6-based networks (maybe only for internal
> control and management), that have no connection to the Internet.

Why can't they request a prefix from their RIR?

RIRs are already "Central registries" in the broadest sense of the word.

[..]
> On the other hand the currently defined ULA format is probably also not
> very well-suited for that purpose, since it is intended to be used for
> sites, but these products rarely require ~2^16 subnets, i.e., an 8 bit
> subnet ID may be sufficient for most purposes.
[..]
> Thus, for this case the
> currently defined ULA format is too restrictive requiring a 16-bit
> subnet ID.

Then why not have the organisation needing and hardcoding those prefixes
calculate ULAs in /48s but splitting them up into subprefixes for
multiple products.


A better question maybe is if those components in such a prefix ever
have to talk outside of that closed network. If they don't, why bother
having a different unique prefix for every little private network?
Having to custom-provide different numbers on a large scale is likely
only an extra cost in software/ROM flashing.

(As the title notes 'automotive' I don't see them repurposing the same
hard/software and suddenly changing the whole mentality to start talking
against other networks; they might do that but only with the next
edition of the car.)

> Letting manufacturers ask for a large PI prefix from the
> normal routing space does not make much sense either, since it is not
> intended to be ever routed in the Internet.

The RIR effectively only acts as a registration point thus guaranteeing
that address space allocated in their region, from them, is unique. They
do not and cannot guarantee anything regarding routing on the Internet.

Greets,
 Jeroen
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to