[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

Mark Smith nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Wed Apr 21 16:47:20 CDT 2010

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:25:46 -0400
Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> > While I think this is an improvement, unless the distribution of ULA-C is no cheaper
> > and no easier to get than GUA, I still think there is reason to believe that it is likely
> > ULA-C will become de facto GUA over the long term.
> >
> > As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent appropriate protections in
> > RIR policy.
> I agree with owen, mostly... except I think we should just push RIR's
> to make GUA accessible to folks that need ipv6 adress space,
> regardless of connectiivty to thegreater 'internet' (for some
> definition of that thing).
> ULA of all types causes headaches on hosts, routers, etc. There is no
> reason to go down that road, just use GUA (Globally Unique Addresses).

So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep
using globals that now aren't yours?

I'm also curious about these headaches. What are they?

> -Chris

More information about the NANOG mailing list