In message <4BC01459-B53A-4B2C-B75B-47D89550DFC5@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20 Which is part one of the three things that have to happen to make = ULA really bad for the internet. =20 Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money = to route it within their public network between multiple sites owned = by the same customer. =20 =20 That same customer is also going to have enough global address space to be able to reach other global destinations, at least enough space for all nodes that are permitted to access the Internet, if = not more. Proper global address space ensures that if a global = destination is reachable, then there is a high probability of successfully = reaching it. The scope of external ULA reachability, regardless of how much money is thrown at the problem, isn't going to be as good as proper global addresses. =20 _IF_ they implement as intended and as documented. As you've noted there's a lot of confusion and a lot of people not reading the documents, latching onto ULA and deciding ti's good. =20 It's not a big leap for some company to do a huge ULA deployment saying "this will never connect to the intarweb thingy" and 5-10 = years later not want to redeploy all their addressing, so, they start =
=20 In message <E22A56B3-68F1-4A75-A091-E416800C485B@delong.com>, Owen = DeLong write s: throwing
money at getting providers to do what they shouldn't instead of readdressing their networks. =20 IPv4 think. =20 You don't re-address you add a new address to every node. IPv6 is designed for multiple addresses. =20 That's a form of re-addressing. It's not removing the old addresses, = but, it is a major undertaking just the same in a large deployment.
I don't see any major difference in the amount of work required to go from disconnected ULA to ULA + PA/PI or ULA + NAT compared to disconnected PI to connected PI. Whether the machines have one or two address is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
For private site interconnect, I'd think it more likely that the provider would isolate the customers traffic and ULA address space = via something like a VPN service e.g. MPLS, IPsec. =20 One would hope, but, I bet laziness and misunderstanding trumps reason and adherence to RFCs over the long term. Since ULA won't get hard-coded into routers as unroutable (it can't), =20 Actually it can be. You just need a easy switch to turn it off. The router can even work itself out many times. Configure multiple = interfaces from the same ULA /48 and you pass traffic for the /48 between those interfaces. You also pass routes for that /48 via those interfaces. =20 If you have an easy switch to turn it off, it will get used, thus = meaning that it isn't hard coded, it's just default.
On by default will create a effective deterrent.
=20 Owen -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org