[address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Mon May 28 14:30:30 CEST 2007
On 27-mei-2007, at 22:51, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com> >> On 15-mei-2007, at 9:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: >>> And the only way to control ULA-central is to have it within the >>> RIR system, >> >> How would that work in practice? Approximately 100% of all >> organizations use RFC 1918 space. Obviously one use for >> RFC 1918 space goes away with IPv6 (NAT) but I'd say that >> the number of internet users requiring some kind of local >> addressing will still be 10, 20, 30 or more percent. The RIR >> membership is measured in thousands. > > All correct. > >> So tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of >> organizations that may want ULA-c space have no relationship >> with an RIR. They may not even have a relationship with an ISP... >> So how are the RIRs supposed to manage their relationship >> with 10 or 100 times as many people as they have relationships >> with now? > You have the flawed assumption that everyone who uses RFC1918 space > today will want/need ULA-C in the future. No, what I said was: >> Approximately 100% of all >> organizations use RFC 1918 space. Obviously one use for >> RFC 1918 space goes away with IPv6 (NAT) but I'd say that >> the number of internet users requiring some kind of local >> addressing will still be 10, 20, 30 or more percent. > The vast majority of folks will be fine with ULA-L Most people aren't very good with statistics, knowing for sure you have unique space is better than having just a 99.9999% probability that it's unique. > (or PA) space PA or PI is irrelevant to this discussion, people who need ULA may not even connect to the internet, and if they do, they need this space in ADDITION to routable address space, regardless of the type. > and the target market for ULA-C is identical to the target market > for PIv6. Nonsense. > so the debate comes down to why we want to put orgs on ULA-C space > instead of just giving them PI space. No-brainer: ULA-C space doesn't use up routing table slots. > If they're truly going to use it privately, they won't consume > routing slots in the DFZ, and if they aren't they'll be using PIv6 > anyways and won't have a need for ULA-C. You are being ridiculous. There is no connection between ULA-C and PI. Everyone can get ULA, not everyone can get PI. And ULA is even more important for people who have PA because that way they can have their internal infrastructure on stable addresses even when their routable address space is renumbered. Also, with IPv4, it's very common to use RFC 1918 space for internal infrastructure that must not be reachable from the internet. It's much more convenient to use unroutable address space for this rather than routable address space that is filtered. > there is significant risk that ULA-C will end up not being > "private" because there will be a set of ISPs that agree to route > the space for a fee. If that set grows to critical mass, ULA-C > will be no different than PIv6 anyways. I don't see the problem. We agree that routing ULA space is a bad idea. However, if someone is prepared to give me enough money to change my mind, how can that possibly be a problem? Or do you want to protect yourself from your own greed?