[131280] 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 20:20:08 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSX.4.64.1010211227570.304@cevin-2.local>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:17:17 -0700
To: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Graham Beneke wrote:
>=20
>> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 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
> I know for a fact that an extremely large tier 1 routed RFC1918 =
address space for an extremely large cable company at one time (and no, =
I don't mean 2547 or anything like that). I have no idea if this is =
still occurring, but when this very large cable company needed to use =
more private addresses they actually would ask the tier 1 for an =
assignment in order to avoid collision.
>=20
> I don't see the problem with ULA though, sure, someone will route it, =
but not everyone, just those getting paid to. It's actually the perfect =
solution to routing table bloat as there is a financial relationship =
between the parties that announce space and the networks that carry it.
>=20
Only until there are two parties getting paid by two other parties to =
route it and they agree to exchange those routes without compensation in =
order to benefit their mutual customers who want to reach each other. =
=46rom there, the problem mushrooms rapidly.
Owen
