RE: IPv6 Unique Local Addresses
Please don't take away ULA.
You really think that doing ULA according to the RFCs (collision avoidance algorithm and all) is easier than filling out a form at HE? REALLY?
Yes.
It's hard enough to sell ipv6 for LAN without adding having to get a tunnel, register with a RIR, whatever else. ULA gives us the option to spin up ipv6 networks without anyone else being involved. We have to be able to make private networks without contacting anyone, and we will go back to ipv4 if that's our only option.
On Mar 2, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Nicholas Warren <nwarren@barryelectric.com> wrote:
Please don't take away ULA.
You really think that doing ULA according to the RFCs (collision avoidance algorithm and all) is easier than filling out a form at HE? REALLY?
Yes.
It's hard enough to sell ipv6 for LAN without adding having to get a tunnel, register with a RIR, whatever else.
ULA gives us the option to spin up ipv6 networks without anyone else being involved. We have to be able to make private networks without contacting anyone, and we will go back to ipv4 if that's our only option.
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is. Owen
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is.
Owen
I'm not sure I'd say it's pointless and useless. It's free, which gives it at least some point/use case, versus IPv6 space obtained from an RIR where, at least in ARIN's case, you have fees associated with that. I'm lucky enough to have a /32 from ARIN for the networks I work on, so we're not stretched for space or worried about deploying ULA. For a small organization where even a /48 would be a luxury, and with no good native IPv6 carriers available locally (still plenty of places like that), deploying IPv6 on ULA space may be the stepping stone they need until other options become open to them.
Exactly what Matt Harris says here... ULA is free. Space obtained from ARIN is not. You want to discourage someone from doing the right thing, charge a lot for that. Matthew Kaufman On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:30 AM Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is.
Owen
I'm not sure I'd say it's pointless and useless. It's free, which gives it at least some point/use case, versus IPv6 space obtained from an RIR where, at least in ARIN's case, you have fees associated with that. I'm lucky enough to have a /32 from ARIN for the networks I work on, so we're not stretched for space or worried about deploying ULA. For a small organization where even a /48 would be a luxury, and with no good native IPv6 carriers available locally (still plenty of places like that), deploying IPv6 on ULA space may be the stepping stone they need until other options become open to them.
Space from tunnel brokers is also free. Owen
On Mar 2, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
Exactly what Matt Harris says here... ULA is free. Space obtained from ARIN is not. You want to discourage someone from doing the right thing, charge a lot for that.
Matthew Kaufman
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:30 AM Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net <mailto:matt@netfire.net>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is.
Owen
I'm not sure I'd say it's pointless and useless. It's free, which gives it at least some point/use case, versus IPv6 space obtained from an RIR where, at least in ARIN's case, you have fees associated with that. I'm lucky enough to have a /32 from ARIN for the networks I work on, so we're not stretched for space or worried about deploying ULA. For a small organization where even a /48 would be a luxury, and with no good native IPv6 carriers available locally (still plenty of places like that), deploying IPv6 on ULA space may be the stepping stone they need until other options become open to them.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Space from tunnel brokers is also free.
Owen
For myriad reasons (added latency, reliability concerns related to relying on traffic over a connection which doesn't offer an SLA or recourse for downtime, lack of support on ISP-provided CPE, etc) a tunnel broker connection may not be a feasible choice for all organizations and networks. This brings us back to my previous point.
Another problem with tunnel brokers is that they are sometimes flagged by content providers as being some sort of "proxy", and consequently won't send you traffic. Notably, Netflix. On 3/2/18 3:06 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Space from tunnel brokers is also free.
Owen
For myriad reasons (added latency, reliability concerns related to relying on traffic over a connection which doesn't offer an SLA or recourse for downtime, lack of support on ISP-provided CPE, etc) a tunnel broker connection may not be a feasible choice for all organizations and networks. This brings us back to my previous point.
Once again, you’re talking about usability of the addresses for internet connectivity. I don’t understand the relevance since we’re talking about a GUA based substitute for ULA. What am I missing? Owen
On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Bryan Holloway <bryan@shout.net> wrote:
Another problem with tunnel brokers is that they are sometimes flagged by content providers as being some sort of "proxy", and consequently won't send you traffic. Notably, Netflix.
On 3/2/18 3:06 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Space from tunnel brokers is also free.
Owen
For myriad reasons (added latency, reliability concerns related to relying on traffic over a connection which doesn't offer an SLA or recourse for downtime, lack of support on ISP-provided CPE, etc) a tunnel broker connection may not be a feasible choice for all organizations and networks. This brings us back to my previous point.
On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: Space from tunnel brokers is also free.
Owen
For myriad reasons (added latency, reliability concerns related to relying on traffic over a connection which doesn't offer an SLA or recourse for downtime, lack of support on ISP-provided CPE, etc) a tunnel broker connection may not be a feasible choice for all organizations and networks. This brings us back to my previous point.
Again, how is this relevant if you are using the space as if it were ULA? Owen
Section 3 of https://tunnelbroker.net/tos.php It isn't "free". It may be included with a service that is currently available for free, but they aren't providing free address space for an unlimited period. Matthew Kaufman On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Space from tunnel brokers is also free.
Owen
On Mar 2, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
Exactly what Matt Harris says here... ULA is free. Space obtained from ARIN is not. You want to discourage someone from doing the right thing, charge a lot for that.
Matthew Kaufman
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:30 AM Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is.
Owen
I'm not sure I'd say it's pointless and useless. It's free, which gives it at least some point/use case, versus IPv6 space obtained from an RIR where, at least in ARIN's case, you have fees associated with that. I'm lucky enough to have a /32 from ARIN for the networks I work on, so we're not stretched for space or worried about deploying ULA. For a small organization where even a /48 would be a luxury, and with no good native IPv6 carriers available locally (still plenty of places like that), deploying IPv6 on ULA space may be the stepping stone they need until other options become open to them.
Sure… You have to maintain the tunnel or they may reassign/reallocate the address. Here’s the reality of that, however: 1. Unless you care about reaching the customer they reassigned it to from your network, you don’t care. 2. Using it for ULA in addition to the tunnel isn’t really prohibited by that. It’s a gray area, I’ll admit. 3. Sure, they can cancel the service at any time, but you get what you pay for. It saves you $100/year while it lasts. Owen
On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
Section 3 of https://tunnelbroker.net/tos.php <https://tunnelbroker.net/tos.php>
It isn't "free". It may be included with a service that is currently available for free, but they aren't providing free address space for an unlimited period.
Matthew Kaufman
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: Space from tunnel brokers is also free.
Owen
On Mar 2, 2018, at 12:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at <mailto:matthew@matthew.at>> wrote:
Exactly what Matt Harris says here... ULA is free. Space obtained from ARIN is not. You want to discourage someone from doing the right thing, charge a lot for that.
Matthew Kaufman
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:30 AM Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net <mailto:matt@netfire.net>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
I doubt anyone is taking it away, pointless and useless as it is.
Owen
I'm not sure I'd say it's pointless and useless. It's free, which gives it at least some point/use case, versus IPv6 space obtained from an RIR where, at least in ARIN's case, you have fees associated with that. I'm lucky enough to have a /32 from ARIN for the networks I work on, so we're not stretched for space or worried about deploying ULA. For a small organization where even a /48 would be a luxury, and with no good native IPv6 carriers available locally (still plenty of places like that), deploying IPv6 on ULA space may be the stepping stone they need until other options become open to them.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Sure… You have to maintain the tunnel or they may reassign/reallocate the address. Here’s the reality of that, however:
1. Unless you care about reaching the customer they reassigned it to from your network, you don’t care. 2. Using it for ULA in addition to the tunnel isn’t really prohibited by that. It’s a gray area, I’ll admit. 3. Sure, they can cancel the service at any time, but you get what you pay for. It saves you $100/year while it lasts.
Owen
I'm not sure where you're getting the $100 figure from, ARIN's minimum fee for an allocation is $250/year (for a /40 or smaller block) on top of membership fees of $500/yr, so that's $750/yr to get a /48 from the North American RIR (which is the only one I'm looking at today given that the context is the nanog list). Additionally, tunnel providers can and have shut down permanently at random - SixXS was among the largest providers, and they shut down operations entirely last year. So any folks using space from them had to renumber, either on to another tunnel provider's space, or to ULA. Re-numbering has associated costs, which in the case we're pointing to here, could've been saved had they deployed on ULA space instead.
On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:38 PM, Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: Sure… You have to maintain the tunnel or they may reassign/reallocate the address. Here’s the reality of that, however:
1. Unless you care about reaching the customer they reassigned it to from your network, you don’t care. 2. Using it for ULA in addition to the tunnel isn’t really prohibited by that. It’s a gray area, I’ll admit. 3. Sure, they can cancel the service at any time, but you get what you pay for. It saves you $100/year while it lasts.
Owen
I'm not sure where you're getting the $100 figure from, ARIN's minimum fee for an allocation is $250/year (for a /40 or smaller block) on top of membership fees of $500/yr, so that's $750/yr to get a /48 from the North American RIR (which is the only one I'm looking at today given that the context is the nanog list). Additionally, tunnel providers can and have shut down permanently at random - SixXS was among the largest providers, and they shut down operations entirely last year. So any folks using space from them had to renumber, either on to another tunnel provider's space, or to ULA. Re-numbering has associated costs, which in the case we're pointing to here, could've been saved had they deployed on ULA space instead.
You don’t need an allocation. Get an assignment. Owen
At 02:02 AM 3/3/2018, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:38 PM, Matt Harris <matt@netfire.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: Sure You have to maintain the tunnel or they may reassign/reallocate the address. Hereâs the reality of that, however:
1. Unless you care about reaching the customer they reassigned it to from your network, you donât care. 2. Using it for ULA in addition to the tunnel isnât really prohibited by that. Itâs a gray area, Iâll admit. 3. Sure, they can cancel the service at any time, but you get what you pay for. It saves you $100/year while it lasts.
Owen
I'm not sure where you're getting the $100 figure from, ARIN's minimum fee for an allocation is $250/year (for a /40 or smaller block) on top of membership fees of $500/yr, so that's $750/yr to get a /48 from the North American RIR (which is the only one I'm looking at today given that the context is the nanog list). Additionally, tunnel providers can and have shut down permanently at random - SixXS was among the largest providers, and they shut down operations entirely last year. So any folks using space from them had to renumber, either on to another tunnel provider's space, or to ULA. Re-numbering has associated costs, which in the case we're pointing to here, could've been saved had they deployed on ULA space instead.
You donât need an allocation. Get an assignment.
Owen
Petition the RIR's (and IETF?) to set up a HE like service for 'micro' end-users? Self-registration and $4.99/year gets you a pseudo-GUA /48 to keep forever but currently understood as not accepted by your ISP. Some day maybe there will be an efficient way to provide global reachability. Dave B.
On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 12:38:58AM -0600, Matt Harris wrote:
I'm not sure where you're getting the $100 figure from, ARIN's minimum fee for an allocation is $250/year [...]
End Users have a different fee structure: Annual maintenance fees are $100 for each IPv4 address block, $100 for each IPv6 address block, and $100 USD for each ASN assigned to the organization. If you just have an IPv6 block, it's only $100/year.
On 03/02/2018 02:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Exactly what Matt Harris says here... ULA is free. Space obtained from ARIN is not. You want to discourage someone from doing the right thing, charge a lot for that.
The ARIN fee schedule for an ASN and a /40 has an amortized annual cost approximately equal to a 2TB hard drive. Is that really too much to bear for a business running a critical network service? -- Joel Whitehouse
participants (8)
-
Bryan Holloway -
daveb -
Joel Whitehouse -
John Osmon -
Matt Harris -
Matthew Kaufman -
Nicholas Warren -
Owen DeLong