ULA and RIR cost-recovery

Thu Nov 25 03:05:31 UTC 2004

At 07:11 PM 11/24/2004, Owen DeLong wrote:

>*** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
>*** Status:   Good Signature from Invalid Key
>*** Alert:    Please verify signer's key before trusting signature.
>*** Signer:   Owen DeLong (General Purpose Personal Key) <owen at delong.com> 
>(0x0FE2AA3D)
>*** Signed:   11/24/2004 7:12:03 PM
>*** Verified: 11/24/2004 9:57:11 PM
>*** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***
>
>
>
>--On Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:52 -0800 Crist Clark 
><crist.clark at globalstar.com> wrote:
>
>>Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against
>>>>the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime
>>>>practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the
>>>>thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against
>>>>something that really doesn't impact them.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps it is because in the perception of the operator community, we do
>>>not believe it will not impact us.  The reality is that once registered
>>>ULAs
>>>become available, the next and obvious step will be enterprises that
>>>receive
>>>them demanding that their providers route them.  Economic pressure will
>>>override IETF ideal, and, operator impact is the obvious result.
>>
>>Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And
>>that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6
>>ULA answer be the same as the IPv4 RFC1918 answer, "I could announce
>>those networks for you, but no one else would accept the routes. (And
>>I would be ridiculed straight off of NANOG.)" I presume everyone will
>>be filtering the ULA prefix(es), link local, loopback, and other
>>obvious bogons from their tables. How does this enterprise demand that
>>other providers route the ULA prefixes too?
>Yes, they do.  However, today, with RFC-1918, we can at least give them a
>good technology reason why not.  With ULA, we have no such defense... There's
>simply no reason a unique prefix can't be routed.

So with unique address blocks, blocks that should not appear in the GLOBAL 
routing table, companies could use those prefixes for private peering all 
over the place. This sounds like a great idea for companies cooperating in 
commerce operations. Of course all that private traffic might traverse a 
network that bypasses the ISPs and NSPs, or perhaps runs over private 
virtual circuits (MPLS, Frame, ATM or whatever the popular choice is for 
such circuits that month).

While from a network operator's perspective, this might be a disaster, it's 
an enabler for corporate networks, and there's no reason to discourage it.

If you are a network provider, then filter the entire prefix block and any 
longer prefixes announced. Please, though, stay out of the way of private 
interconnectors who've been asking for years to have unique space so they 
can reliably talk with one another.

>>If we're talking about routing ULAs within a providers network, I'd
>>think providers would love them. Right now, an enterprise can buy a
>>"corporate VPN" or layer two network to route "private" addresses.
>>Wouldn't providers be happy to offer the same service, for the same
>>extra $$$, in IPv6? Especially when you consider that you can just
>>drop the routes for the ULAs in your interior routing tables since
>>ULAs are well, unique, and you're done. No tunnelling or other levels of
>>indirection required. Charge the same or more for the "business-level
>>service" that you offer now, but there is less work for you to do it.
>
>Right, but, the problem comes when the customers expect you to also announce
>the ULAs at your borders.

Hey, it's your network, you set your policies.

>   Believe me, this will occur.  It will probably
>start with "Well, we've got this connection to you and this connection to
>ISP B, and, you guys peer, so, can you pass our ULA prefixes along to each
>other?"

Talk to the other ISP, work out pricing, and sell an IP over IP solution, 
MPLS solution or some such. Look at this as an opportunity, instead of a 
problem, and there's money to be made without leaking the prefixes into the 
backbone. Embrace progress and conceive of creative solutions to customer 
needs.

>   The slippery slope will continue until market economics have blurred
>or completely erased the line between PI and ULA.

Well, giving in and letting companies have PI space would be nice, but 
unique ULA space would be extremely valuable, even to folks who REALLY do 
not need PI space.