nanog mailing list archives
Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 15:39:04 +0100
On 25-nov-04, at 21:16, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute to the global routing table so there is no issue. :-)
There is an issue of uniqueness. Those hosts that can't reach the Internettypically can talk to other hosts that can, and even multiple privatenetworks often link to each other. At a minimum, statistical uniqueness is necessary to avoid collisions between business partners even on a totallydisconnected network.
Yes, this is why we need ULAs.
ULAs do not contribute to the global routing table unless ISPs allow them to in violation of the draft's wording and intent.
Well, seeing how difficult it is to get legitimate address space routed (see bogon thread) I don't see how all ISPs in the world are going to route this space unless some significant blackmail is involved (such as the likes of Google using this address space exclusively).
And don't forget that this is IPv6. Today, and for the forseeable future, you can filter out all IPv6 routes that you don't like without breaking any connectivity as everything is reachable over IPv4 anyway. So people who don't want to see the ULAs in their routing table can just filter them out. (Although it works both ways: people can choose to do IPv6 using ULAs only without having to suffer unreachability.)
The WG welcomes input on how to prevent this from occurring without invoking restraint of trade concerns.
How about this: we all start announcing a few hundred random ULAs. This will make the v6 table too large to carry without filtering ULAs. I don't expect ISPs who aren't opposed to carrying ULAs for other ISP's customers to be willing to create filters that only let these specific ones through but not the background noise.
It would probably also help if the ICANN directs all registries that glue records towards ULA space aren't allowed.
Current thread:
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?], (continued)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] bmanning (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 20)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 21)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 25)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] bmanning (Nov 26)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 27)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 27)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Nils Ketelsen (Nov 22)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Nils Ketelsen (Nov 22)
- Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32) Sean Donelan (Nov 22)
- Re: Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32) Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Frame-Relay reliability (was Re: who gets a /32) Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 23)
- large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Pekka Savola (Nov 21)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] bmanning (Nov 21)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] Pekka Savola (Nov 22)
- Re: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]] bmanning (Nov 22)