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

Thu Apr 22 05:48:18 UTC 2010

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?

use pi space, request it from your local friendly RIR.

> I'm also curious about these headaches. What are they?

do I use that ula-* address to talk to someone or another GUA address?
how do I decide? what about to business partners?

one address... much simpler, much less to screw up.

-chris

>
>> -Chris
>>
>