Disconnected networks have a bothersome tendency to get connected at some point ( I have been severely bitten by this in the past ), so while I agree that there is no need to coordinate anything globally, then a RFC 1918-like definition would be nice (if we are not going to use ULAs, that is)
cheers! Carlos On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- -- ========================= Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =========================