[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