[125706] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Wed Apr 21 12:12:50 2010
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <s2g75cb24521004210756g9df1616bh803b93ee4f554cfa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:11:38 -0700
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> yes... for those less willing to search: "Unique Addresses are Good"
> ...
> This does seem to be pretty much exactly my point (their point I =
suppose)
Yup. Back in the day, the folks who ran the RIRs (at the time) were a =
bit distressed at that IAB statement as we had seen the writing on the =
wall and were telling customers that due to the limited nature of IPv4, =
if you didn't want to connect to the Internet, you should use private =
addressing. It was a bit of a "War of RFCs" (1597, 1627, 1814, 1918).
My impression, which may be wrong, is that the primary driver for ULA-C =
is to avoid the administrative/cost overhead with entering into a =
relationship with the RIRs, particularly if there is no interest in =
connecting (directly) to the Internet. I guess I don't really see the =
harm...=20
Regards,
-drc
Speaking personally. Not representing anyone but myself. Really. No, =
REALLY.
(although this disclaimer doesn't appear to work for some folks who =
really should know better)=
