On man, mai 28, 2007 14:30, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 27-mei-2007, at 22:51, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
On 15-mei-2007, at 9:57, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: Approximately 100% of all organizations use RFC 1918 space. Obviously one use for RFC 1918 space goes away with IPv6 (NAT) but I'd say that the number of internet users requiring some kind of local addressing will still be 10, 20, 30 or more percent.
The vast majority of folks will be fine with ULA-L
Most people aren't very good with statistics, knowing for sure you have unique space is better than having just a 99.9999% probability that it's unique.
not really, I work a place where we just can´t have any more collision of address space, we have a few options and ULA-central is the best. 1.) get ula-central and know for sure we won´t get into this issue ever again. 2.) administrate our own local version of ULA-central for the organization we co-operate with 3.) get RIR-space with all the add on administration and documentation... For me, only option 1.) is a real option, the other two are just work-around since we don´t need global routing of the address space in question.
(or PA) space
PA or PI is irrelevant to this discussion, people who need ULA may not even connect to the internet, and if they do, they need this space in ADDITION to routable address space, regardless of the type.
this go for the type of organization I work for. We have our own /32 already and it suite our need for public address space just fine given the 3 options above.
and the target market for ULA-C is identical to the target market for PIv6. Nonsense.
Not often but sometimes I agree with Iljitsch, this is one of them. PI or no PI, PA or PI are completly irrelevant when we talk about the need for ULA-central or not. ULA-central will satisfy a need for non-routable address space that some bigger organization have. ULA-local are just a no go even with a 99,99999% chance of no collision at all. Or to put it in another context, renumbering or any change, experimentation or downtime of the infrastructure are just not an option when we´re talking about medicial/health related equipment.
so the debate comes down to why we want to put orgs on ULA-C space instead of just giving them PI space. No-brainer: ULA-C space doesn't use up routing table slots.
see above, PI or PA have nothing todo in the discussion of ULA-C or not. Site-local, the one that got deprecated would have suited OUR (where I work) just fine but it isn´t there so we need a replacement and ULA-C is what we would need.
If they're truly going to use it privately, they won't consume routing slots in the DFZ, and if they aren't they'll be using PIv6 anyways and won't have a need for ULA-C.
You are being ridiculous. There is no connection between ULA-C and PI. Everyone can get ULA, not everyone can get PI. And ULA is even more important for people who have PA because that way they can have their internal infrastructure on stable addresses even when their routable address space is renumbered. Also, with IPv4, it's very common to use RFC 1918 space for internal infrastructure that must not be reachable from the internet. It's much more convenient to use unroutable address space for this rather than routable address space that is filtered.
100% correct for the organization I work for. We have in fact several very seperated network. To use RIR space, PI or PA for all of them is simply a waste since we don´t need global reachability for it. We just need _UNIQUE_ address space so we can when the need arrise connect any of them together.
there is significant risk that ULA-C will end up not being "private" because there will be a set of ISPs that agree to route the space for a fee. If that set grows to critical mass, ULA-C will be no different than PIv6 anyways. I don't see the problem. We agree that routing ULA space is a bad idea. However, if someone is prepared to give me enough money to change my mind, how can that possibly be a problem? Or do you want to protect yourself from your own greed?
I only have one thing to say, so what if the ISP agrees to route them? RIR space, PI or PA, give _global_ routability. ULA-C or ULA-Local give us the option to interconnect some closed network together anyway we want AND know it won´t get routed global. -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID roger@jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------