[address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

On man, mai 28, 2007 14:30, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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.

not really, I work a place where we just can´t have any more collision of
address space, we have a few options and ULA-central is the best.

1.) get ula-central and know for sure we won´t get into this issue ever
again.

2.) administrate our own local version of ULA-central for the organization
we co-operate with

3.) get RIR-space with all the add on administration and documentation...


For me, only option 1.) is a real option, the other two are just
work-around since we don´t need global routing of the address space in
question.


>> (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.

this go for the type of organization I work for. We have our own /32
already and it suite our need for public address space just fine given the
3 options above.


>> and the target market for ULA-C is identical to the target market
>> for PIv6.
> Nonsense.

Not often but sometimes I agree with Iljitsch, this is one of them. PI or
no PI, PA or PI are completly irrelevant when we talk about the need for
ULA-central or not.

ULA-central will satisfy a need for non-routable address space that some
bigger organization have. ULA-local are just a no go even with a 99,99999%
chance of no collision at all. Or to put it in another context,
renumbering or any change, experimentation or downtime of the
infrastructure are just not an option when we´re talking about
medicial/health related equipment.


>> 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.

see above, PI or PA have nothing todo in the discussion of ULA-C or not.
Site-local, the one that got deprecated would have suited OUR (where I
work) just fine but it isn´t there so we need a replacement and ULA-C is
what we would need.


>> 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.

100% correct for the organization I work for. We have in fact several very
seperated network. To use RIR space, PI or PA for all of them is simply a
waste since we don´t need global reachability for it. We just need
_UNIQUE_ address space so we can when the need arrise connect any of them
together.


>> 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?

I only have one thing to say, so what if the ISP agrees to route them?

RIR space, PI or PA, give _global_ routability.
ULA-C or ULA-Local give us the option to interconnect some closed network
together anyway we want AND know it won´t get routed global.



-- 


------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------