[125677] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Senie)
Wed Apr 21 01:47:26 2010
From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D227B33-7D6C-4B4C-AF1D-41C338205411@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:46:47 -0400
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I see a need for stable, permanent blocks of addresses within an =
organization. For example, a branch office connecting to a central =
office over VPN: firewall rules need to be predictable. If the branch =
office' IPv6 block changes, much access will break. This is directly =
analogous to how RFC1918 space is used today in such environments.
There is a need to have organizations be able to either self-assign or =
RIR-assign space that they own and can use without trouble within their =
network. That address space need not be routable on the public networks.
In general I think this draft has merit.
On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong 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.
>=20
> As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent =
appropriate protections in
> RIR policy.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 9:34 PM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> and a very pleasant evening.
>>=20
>> a few questions.
>>=20
>> IPv6 on your radar?
>> Looking at options for addressing your future v6 needs?
>>=20
>> Have you looked at the IETF/ID in the subject line?
>>=20
>> if you think something like this is a good idea, worth=20
>> persuing, I'd like to hear from you.
>>=20
>>=20
>> --bill
>=20
>=20
