Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 — Unique local addresses

Thu Oct 21 08:35:55 UTC 2010

On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:

> On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> 
>>> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to
>>> route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by
>>> the same customer.
>> 
>> Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?
> 
> I have seen this in some small providers. Doesn't last long since the chance of collision is high. It then becomes a VPN.
> 
Correct... The only reason it isn't is because of the high chance of collision.
Due to virtually guaranteed overlapping address conflicts, it doesn't work
with RFC-1918.

ULA solves that "problem" by providing probably unique addresses.

>>> Part 3 will be when that same provider (or some other provider in the
>>> same boat) takes the next step and starts trading routes of ULA space
>>> with other provider(s).
>> 
>> Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4?
> 
> I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get caught out by collisions.
> 
> The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch someone out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess.
> 
Exactly.

Owen