On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
On 2012-01-25 19:51 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
What everybody calls "Registered ULA" or ULA-C(entral) is what the RIRs already provide. Also entities that have such a strict requirement are perfectly served with address space the RIRs provide.
Not so. The registries provide GUA, not ULA. Not everybody considers the difference significant, but many if not most of the folks who want to use ULA for anything at all do.
I think you misunderstood my terminology, which is afaik the one used by the relevant documents,
From what I've been able to determine, the folks who want Unique Local Addresses usually want a block of addresses which only function on
Jeroen, I knew I should have used the longer explanation. private networks. Should their packets ever leak on to the public Internet, the ULA users want them to fail. By contrast, the registries hand out Global Unicast Addresses. If packets with these addresses make it to the public Internet, they'll probably work. This is not a good thing if you're implementing a SCADA network whose hosts may need to talk to another company network, or even a remote monitoring company's network, but should never talk to hosts on the public Internet. I don't want to get into an argument over the security implications (or non-implications) of addresses which are or are not publicly routable. Suffice it to say there are networking professionals to whom a GUA address is not a satisfactory substitute for a ULA address. Hence, a registered ULA address IS NOT equivalent to what the RIRs provide.
My "registration" was erased from that page. Don't know when. Don't know why. But it speaks poorly for its function as a registry.
This was likely caused by the little note at the bottom:
"Prefixes which are not generated using the ULA generator will be silently removed; ULAs are not supposed to look pretty."
Various folks are registering fd00::/48 or 'fun' stuff like fd00:b00b::/48
Hey, do you realize how many tries it took me to randomly generate fd00:b00b::/48? In all seriousness, though, while protecting against someone blindly registering lots of naughts is probably reasonable, a registry isn't worth much if it won't record the address ranges folks actually choose to use. Regardless of how closely the RFC was followed in those ranges' selection. In a sense, such a registry makes a net negative contribution because its existence discourages the creation of another organized effort. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004