[125701] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Apr 21 10:55:04 2010
In-Reply-To: <54172322-02CC-4303-AEAC-AE9FF1EBB4EA@senie.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:54:28 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> 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).
>>
>> -Chris
>
> Failure to provide an ULA mechanism will result in self assignment from the spaces not yet made available for allocation. Down that road we will find history repeating itself.
>
> The reason I see a use in ULA-C is to ensure there is a way for cooperating organizations
> (whether within or between enterprises) to have addressing that will not overlap for private
> interconnects. If the RIRs will give out the space to end users and not charge a fortune for
> it, there may be a chance of that working. It is less clear whether this is within the
define 'fortune' ? I think currently for a PI /48 it's 1250/yr right?
So... the cost (less really) of a laptop for your newest employee per
year, basically.
That seems quite reasonable (to me). Is that in the range you feel is
acceptable?
> business model or mission of the RIRs, though, to hand out very small chucks of address
> space to a very large number of organizations for address space that will not be routed.
'not be routed' .... I think the RIR's should assign ip space, they
have no idea (and no control) over where/what gets routed. They are a
uniqueness registry really, for ipv6.
> Of course if the ULA approach does gain acceptance, you'll have a LOT easier time
> deciding which blocks of addresses to permit and deny in your BGP sessions and packet
> filters on your borders.
PI for v6 comes from a set block in each RIR, eh?
-Chris
