Disconnected networks have a bothersome tendency to get connected at some point ( I have been severely bitten by this in the past ), so while I agree that there is no need to coordinate anything globally, then a RFC 1918-like definition would be nice (if we are not going to use ULAs, that is) cheers! Carlos On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:57PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
There are many cases where ULA is a perfect fit, and to work around it seems silly and reduces the full capabilities of IPv6. I fully expect to see protocols and networks within homes which will take full advantage of ULA. I also expect to see hosts which don't talk to the public internet directly and never need a GUA.
I guess we can agree to disagree about this. I haven't seen one yet.
What would your recommended solution be then for disconnected networks? Every home user and enterprise user requests GUA directly from their RIR/NIR/LIR at a cost of hunderds of dollars per year or more?
For a completely disconnected network, I don't care what you do, use whatever number you want. There's no need to coordinate that with the internet in any way.
For a network connected to a connected network, either get GUA from an RIR or get GUA from the network you are connected to or get GUA from some other ISP/LIR.
There are lots of options.
I'd like to see RIR issued GUA get a lot cheaper. I'd much rather see cheap easy to get RIR issued GUA than see ULA get widespread use.
Owen
-- -- ========================= Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =========================