On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:17:20AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:25:46 -0400
> Christopher Morrow <[email protected]> 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).
> >
>
> So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep
> using globals that now aren't yours?
>
> I'm also curious about these headaches. What are they?
>
I'm so not creative enough to compose this whole missive in TLAs... perhaps
some day.
Some bright blub got tired of typing out "Globally Unique Addresses) and so
started
using the TLA/GUA.
Which eventually got me to thinking. Technically, all IP addresses are
globally unique.
There is only one of them. 172.14.3.42/32 is a GUA. There are however, two
other
vectors which the community seems to want and we talk around them a whole bunch.
Perhaps we should explicitly make them part of the conversation.
) A GUA has a single authoritative chain of custody... e.g. the community
recognizes
that only Bill Manning's Bait and Sushi shoppe (AS 66,666) is
authorized to
inject routes for and sink traffic to 172.14.3.0/24
The whole rPKI construct is built to support this idea. Now some
prefixes are
defined to -NOT- have a single authoriative chain of custody, witness
RFC 1918.
And NAT makes matters "fuzzier" ... bringing scoping into the mix - but
I'll
stick by the postualte that this single authoritative chain of custody
is
a key point in understanding how folk think of IP stewardship ... and
(THIS IS IMPORTANT) ... there is this strong idea that a short custody
chain
is prefered over a long one.
) A GUA is temporally bound**... e.g. the community recognizes that for any
given GUA, there
is a temporal bounding on the chain of custody. DHCP is a canonical
example for
end/leaf sites, where GUAs are leased out for (comparitavely) brief
time periods.
ISPs lease space to their clients for longer periods, and RIRs are
(mostly) binding
a chain of custody to annual cycles. For some legacy space, the
temporal binding
is of -much- longer duration.
so... I might argue that the IANA/RIR/LIR/Enterprise chain has the renumbering
concern
that you raise, while a IPR/Enterprise chain is much shorter and has a smaller
renumbering
concern.
and -IF- the permise and details of the draft are to be beleived, then a
delegation
from that space is just as much assured of global uniqueness than space from an
RIR.
** The Temporaly Unique Address/TUA !!!
