On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> While I think this is an improvement, unless the distribution of ULA-C is no >> cheaper >> and no easier to get than GUA, I still think there is reason to believe that >> it is likely >> ULA-C will become de facto GUA over the long term. >> >> As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent appropriate >> protections in >> RIR policy. > > I agree with owen, mostly... except I think we should just push RIR's > to make GUA accessible to folks that need ipv6 adress space, > regardless of connectiivty to thegreater 'internet' (for some > definition of that thing). > > ULA of all types causes headaches on hosts, routers, etc. There is no > reason to go down that road, just use GUA (Globally Unique Addresses). > > -Chris
Failure to provide an ULA mechanism will result in self assignment from the spaces not yet made available for allocation. Down that road we will find history repeating itself. The reason I see a use in ULA-C is to ensure there is a way for cooperating organizations (whether within or between enterprises) to have addressing that will not overlap for private interconnects. If the RIRs will give out the space to end users and not charge a fortune for it, there may be a chance of that working. It is less clear whether this is within the business model or mission of the RIRs, though, to hand out very small chucks of address space to a very large number of organizations for address space that will not be routed. Of course if the ULA approach does gain acceptance, you'll have a LOT easier time deciding which blocks of addresses to permit and deny in your BGP sessions and packet filters on your borders.
