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

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith
<nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:25:46 -0400
> Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > > While I think this is an improvement, unless the distribution of ULA-C is no cheaper
> > > and no easier to get than GUA, I still think there is reason to believe that it is likely
> > > ULA-C will become de facto GUA over the long term.
> > >
> > > As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent appropriate protections in
> > > RIR policy.
> >
> > I agree with owen, mostly... except I think we should just push RIR's
> > to make GUA accessible to folks that need ipv6 adress space,
> > regardless of connectiivty to thegreater 'internet' (for some
> > definition of that thing).
> >
> > ULA of all types causes headaches on hosts, routers, etc. There is no
> > reason to go down that road, just use GUA (Globally Unique Addresses).
>
> So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep
> using globals that now aren't yours?

use pi space, request it from your local friendly RIR.

> I'm also curious about these headaches. What are they?

do I use that ula-* address to talk to someone or another GUA address?
how do I decide? what about to business partners?

one address... much simpler, much less to screw up.

-chris

> > -Chris