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