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

bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com
Wed Apr 21 11:22:02 CDT 2010


On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:11:38AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > yes... for those less willing to search: "Unique Addresses are Good"
> > ...
> > This does seem to be pretty much exactly my point (their point I suppose)
> 
> Yup.  Back in the day, the folks who ran the RIRs (at the time) were a bit distressed at that IAB statement as we had seen the writing on the wall and were telling customers that due to the limited nature of IPv4, if you didn't want to connect to the Internet, you should use private addressing.  It was a bit of a "War of RFCs" (1597, 1627, 1814, 1918).
> 
> My impression, which may be wrong, is that the primary driver for ULA-C is to avoid the administrative/cost overhead with entering into a relationship with the RIRs, particularly if there is no interest in connecting (directly) to the Internet.  I guess I don't really see the harm... 
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> Speaking personally. Not representing anyone but myself. Really. No, REALLY.
> (although this disclaimer doesn't appear to work for some folks who really should know better)


	this is my take as well.   The RIR system works quite well, esp for 
	networks/networking based on the previous centuries interconnection
	models.  Its the best method for managing constrained resources, such 
	as IPv4.

	something like ULA, esp the -C varient might be worthwhile as an alternative
	distribution channel, a way for folks who want to do novel things with 
	networking/addressing that are not comprended in the normal bottom-up
	processes of the RIR system.  In your words, "avoid the adminisrative/cost
	overhead with entering(maintaining) a relationship with the RIRs"

	I see this proposal as a vector for inovative change.

--bill




More information about the NANOG mailing list