On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote: >>> There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work >>> around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I >>> fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will >>> take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't >>> talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA. >>> >> I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet. > > What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected > networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly > from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or > more?
For a completely disconnected network, I don't care what you do, use whatever number you want. There's no need to coordinate that with the internet in any way. For a network connected to a connected network, either get GUA from an RIR or get GUA from the network you are connected to or get GUA from some other ISP/LIR. There are lots of options. I'd like to see RIR issued GUA get a lot cheaper. I'd much rather see cheap easy to get RIR issued GUA than see ULA get widespread use. Owen