[131180] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re:_IPv6_fc00::/7_=97_Unique_local_addresses?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Oct 21 04:39:51 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CBFC3C9.706@apolix.co.za>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 01:35:55 -0700
To: Graham Beneke <graham@apolix.co.za>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money =
to
>>> route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
>>> the same customer.
>>=20
>> Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?
>=20
> I have seen this in some small providers. Doesn't last long since the =
chance of collision is high. It then becomes a VPN.
>=20
Correct... The only reason it isn't is because of the high chance of =
collision.
Due to virtually guaranteed overlapping address conflicts, it doesn't =
work
with RFC-1918.
ULA solves that "problem" by providing probably unique addresses.
>>> Part 3 will be when that same provider (or some other provider in =
the
>>> same boat) takes the next step and starts trading routes of ULA =
space
>>> with other provider(s).
>>=20
>> Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?
>=20
> I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get =
caught out by collisions.
>=20
> The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch =
someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
>=20
Exactly.
Owen
