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

Richard Barnes richard.barnes at gmail.com
Thu Apr 22 14:58:44 UTC 2010


Isn't "global addresses you can take with you when you change
providers" kind of the definition of Provider Independent address
space?  If you want to keep the same addresses when you change
providers, you just need to get a PI allocation.
--Richard

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith
<nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> 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?
>
>
>> -Chris
>>
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list