On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:11:38AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > yes... for those less willing to search: "Unique Addresses are Good"
> > ...
> > This does seem to be pretty much exactly my point (their point I suppose)
>
> Yup. Back in the day, the folks who ran the RIRs (at the time) were a bit
> distressed at that IAB statement as we had seen the writing on the wall and
> were telling customers that due to the limited nature of IPv4, if you didn't
> want to connect to the Internet, you should use private addressing. It was a
> bit of a "War of RFCs" (1597, 1627, 1814, 1918).
>
> My impression, which may be wrong, is that the primary driver for ULA-C is to
> avoid the administrative/cost overhead with entering into a relationship with
> the RIRs, particularly if there is no interest in connecting (directly) to
> the Internet. I guess I don't really see the harm...
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> Speaking personally. Not representing anyone but myself. Really. No, REALLY.
> (although this disclaimer doesn't appear to work for some folks who really
> should know better)
this is my take as well. The RIR system works quite well, esp for
networks/networking based on the previous centuries interconnection
models. Its the best method for managing constrained resources, such
as IPv4.
something like ULA, esp the -C varient might be worthwhile as an
alternative
distribution channel, a way for folks who want to do novel things with
networking/addressing that are not comprended in the normal bottom-up
processes of the RIR system. In your words, "avoid the
adminisrative/cost
overhead with entering(maintaining) a relationship with the RIRs"
I see this proposal as a vector for inovative change.
--bill
