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

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Wed Apr 21 17:05:01 CDT 2010


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:17:20AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> 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?
> 


I'm so not creative enough to compose this whole missive in TLAs... perhaps some day.

Some bright blub got tired of typing out "Globally Unique Addresses) and so started
using the TLA/GUA.

Which eventually got me to thinking.  Technically, all IP addresses are globally unique.
There is only one of them.  172.14.3.42/32 is a GUA.  There are however, two other
vectors which the community seems to want and we talk around them a whole bunch.
Perhaps we should explicitly make them part of the conversation.


) A GUA has a single authoritative chain of custody...  e.g. the community recognizes
        that only Bill Manning's Bait and Sushi shoppe (AS 66,666)  is authorized to
        inject routes for and sink traffic to  172.14.3.0/24
        The whole rPKI construct is built to support this idea.  Now some prefixes are
        defined to -NOT- have a single authoriative chain of custody, witness RFC 1918.
        And NAT makes matters "fuzzier" ... bringing scoping into the mix - but I'll
        stick by the postualte that this single authoritative chain of custody is
        a key point in understanding how folk think of IP stewardship ... and 
	(THIS IS IMPORTANT) ... there is this strong idea that a short custody chain
	is prefered over a long one.  

) A GUA is temporally bound**...  e.g. the community recognizes that for any given GUA, there
        is a temporal bounding on the chain of custody.  DHCP is a canonical example for
        end/leaf sites, where GUAs are leased out for (comparitavely) brief time periods.
        ISPs lease space to their clients for longer periods, and RIRs are (mostly) binding
        a chain of custody to annual cycles.  For some legacy space, the temporal binding
        is of -much- longer duration. 

so... I might argue that the IANA/RIR/LIR/Enterprise chain has the renumbering concern
that you raise, while a IPR/Enterprise chain is much shorter and has a smaller renumbering
concern.

and -IF- the permise and details of the draft are to be beleived, then a delegation
from that space is just as much assured of global uniqueness than space from an RIR.


** The Temporaly Unique Address/TUA !!!






More information about the NANOG mailing list