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

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:11:38AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > yes... for those less willing to search: "Unique Addresses are Good"
> > ...
> > This does seem to be pretty much exactly my point (their point I suppose)
>
> Yup.  Back in the day, the folks who ran the RIRs (at the time) were a bit distressed at that IAB statement as we had 
> seen the writing on the wall and were telling customers that due to the limited nature of IPv4, if you didn't want to 
> connect to the Internet, you should use private addressing.  It was a bit of a "War of RFCs" (1597, 1627, 1814, 1918).
>
> My impression, which may be wrong, is that the primary driver for ULA-C is to avoid the administrative/cost overhead 
> with entering into a relationship with the RIRs, particularly if there is no interest in connecting (directly) to the 
> Internet.  I guess I don't really see the harm... 
>
> Regards,
> -drc
> Speaking personally. Not representing anyone but myself. Really. No, REALLY.
> (although this disclaimer doesn't appear to work for some folks who really should know better)


        this is my take as well.   The RIR system works quite well, esp for 
        networks/networking based on the previous centuries interconnection
        models.  Its the best method for managing constrained resources, such 
        as IPv4.

        something like ULA, esp the -C varient might be worthwhile as an alternative
        distribution channel, a way for folks who want to do novel things with 
        networking/addressing that are not comprended in the normal bottom-up
        processes of the RIR system.  In your words, "avoid the adminisrative/cost
        overhead with entering(maintaining) a relationship with the RIRs"

        I see this proposal as a vector for inovative change.

--bill