nanog mailing list archives
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
From: Crist Clark <crist.clark () globalstar com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:52:21 -0800
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 donot believe it will not impact us. The reality is that once registered ULAs become available, the next and obvious step will be enterprises that receivethem 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? 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. -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark () globalstar com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387
Current thread:
- Re: geography to get PI in v6 (was: ULA and RIR cost-recovery), (continued)
- Re: geography to get PI in v6 (was: ULA and RIR cost-recovery) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 25)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Måns Nilsson (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Daniel Roesen (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Pekka Savola (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Pekka Savola (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 30)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Crist Clark (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Daniel Senie (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Michael . Dillon (Nov 25)
- MTU (was Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery) Alex Bligh (Nov 25)
- Re: MTU (was Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery) Bill Owens (Nov 25)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Stephen Sprunk (Nov 25)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 26)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Daniel Senie (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 25)