On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Daniel Senie <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
define 'fortune' ? I think currently for a PI /48 it's 1250/yr right? So... the cost (less really) of a laptop for your newest employee per year, basically. That seems quite reasonable (to me). Is that in the range you feel is acceptable? > 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. 'not be routed' .... I think the RIR's should assign ip space, they have no idea (and no control) over where/what gets routed. They are a uniqueness registry really, for ipv6. > 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. PI for v6 comes from a set block in each RIR, eh? -Chris
