[128123] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Barton)
Sun Jul 25 01:35:32 2010
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201007241749.SAA14213@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>>> Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create a site
> ...
>> Did you mean something like this maybe ?:
>>
>> http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
>
> Q.E.D.
>
> The RFC seeks to avoid a registry so we end up with the potential for
> many as a result. May as well have had ARIN do it officially in the
> first place so there'd only be one.
So, back when ULA was first proposed, some of us said (sometimes
privately) that there are only 2 rational options:
1. Do it; with a persistent, guaranteed unique, global registry.
2. Don't do it.
Option 2 was a non-starter since there was too much critical mass. The
logical candidate to operate option 1 was the IANA, and the RIRs were
having none of that. (For bonus points, explain how the RIRs continue to
exist if everyone can have all of the guaranteed-globally-unique IPv6
space they wanted for free.)
So given the overwhelming force pulling at this thing from both
directions, you end up somewhere in the middle where no one wants to be.
And BTW, the lottery is actually the perfect analogy for ULA, since no
matter how astronomical the odds against, eventually someone always
wins.
Doug
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
