nanog mailing list archives
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas () netcore fi>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:35:49 +0200 (EET)
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
#1 Set aside a block for "local" use a-la RFC1918. This set aside should make no recommendations about how the space is subdivided for used for these local purposes.
FWIW, site-locals were dropped (among others) due to concerns about sufficient guarantee of uniqueness. ULA started by having only a local generation mechanism, no central allocation at all. Would that allay your concerns?
#3 Drop the absolutely stupid notion that there should be no PI space. There will be PI space, either by people using ULA for that purposes, or by the RIR's changing this stupidity after they get ahold of it.
I think we all know there's going to be _some_ form of PI space. Whether that's realized by making the policies weaker, by end-sites lying in their address applications, or end-sites providing interesting interpretation for "other organizations", or a number of different mechanisms, the fact is that some form of PI addressing is going to be there. The question just is, what kind, how much of it, and to whom it's available.
#4 Drop the absolutely stupid notion that "one size fits all". A /32 for everyone makes no sense. VLSM was a good idea.
Below.
#5 Stay out of the allocation details. The RIR's have been allocating addresses for years. The RIR's have people, from small to large ISP's and everything inbetween solving real world allocation problems every day. The history tells us is the policy will change over time. History also tells us being too liberal early on can never be "fixed". The RIR's will change policy as time goes on to fit the changing IPv6 world. Let them deal with the policy on a going forward basis.
The history also tells us that being too stingy when there is no need to be stingy will result in useless fragmentation of the addressing, and therefore results in the fragmentation of routing advertisements.
A minimum of /32 per ISP IMHO makes very much sense, because that's so small amount that we aren't going to run out. On the other hand, I agree that one size does not fit all, and larger blocks will also need to be provided. Oops, they already have!
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Current thread:
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery, (continued)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Tony Hain (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Steven M. Bellovin (Nov 24)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Tony Hain (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Michael . Dillon (Nov 25)
- 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)