Below... On 24/03/2017 06:39, Jeroen Massar wrote: > On 2017-03-23 18:28, David Farmer wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Brian E Carpenter >> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>> wrote >> >> >> One detail not mentioned in the /sunset page. Will you leave the >> ULA tool and registry in place (https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/ >> <https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/>) ? >> I believe some people like that. >> >> Brian >> >> >> I'd be interested in some data on the use of the ULA tool and registry, >> I'd especially be interested in use over time. Is use of the ULA >> registry increasing or decreasing over the last few years? > > That is an easy question to answer: > > $ SELECT YEAR(ula_date) AS Year, COUNT(*) AS Count FROM grh_ulas GROUP > BY YEAR(ula_date); > +------+-------+ > | Year | Count | > +------+-------+ > | 2007 | 63 | > | 2008 | 140 | > | 2009 | 321 | > | 2010 | 611 | > | 2011 | 835 | > | 2012 | 742 | > | 2013 | 724 | > | 2014 | 1096 | > | 2015 | 1303 | > | 2016 | 640 | > | 2017 | 143 | > +------+-------+ > 11 rows in set (0.00 sec) > > I would say that it is going down if we look at that count ;) > >> Basically, >> is there an argument for further or new work within the IPv6 community >> on this front? > >>From my POV not really. It is extremely simple to get a prefix from one > of the RIRs. Yes, it costs some money, which is something that should be > addressed IMHO. (routing gear etc costs money too though). > > Also, more importantly, ULA is random per definition, and the chance of > collisions is extremely low. (unless one does not use randomness).
I agree. I have never thought that ULA registration was useful. But apparently some people were worried enough about collisions to use the registry. In any case the little tool to generate a ULA prefix is of value, so I hope you can leave that available. Brian > >> Or, should this service just be sustained as-is, maybe >> finding a new home or new support over the long-term? Or, should this >> service also be sunset, maybe not on the same timeframe as the other >> SixXS services? >> >> Personally, if anything, I like to see some new work here, but I'd like >> to drive what that is or should be with some data. > > Like with many things, I first would ask: what are the > requirements/usecases/etc. > >> Finally, many thanks to SixXS for their years of service to the IPv6 >> community! And, kudos for planning an orderly sunset, rather than >> decaying into oblivion. > > We have been warning people since December 2015. Hopefully since then > they actually called their ISP or changed to ones that support IPv6. > > Greets, > Jeroen > > >