> I suppose most of these users will have big (actually a quite small) flat
> infrastructure to keep it simple? Hence what limits them to use just LL?
> Why ULA? What would be the residential users benefit? Do you think that
> residential users will have small routed networks in the future?
i think that the distinction between "provider" and "consumer" will blur in
the following ways.
first, if everybody in the neighborhood has overlapping wireless clouds, so
that neighbor-sets {A B} {B C} {C D} can join clouds owned by neighbors A,
B, and C respectively, that D's preferred path to A will in some cases be
through C and B rather than through their "providers". this is not just
because their providers might not have as much in-neighborhood capacity due
to backhauling and provider multiplicity, but because this is the topology
many human communities prefer. consider the legal implications for file
sharing when there is vs. isn't a "provider" which is regulated and subject
to CALEA, as a low hanging example.
second, with COMMONS and things like it sprouting up, there will be networks
built using city-owned infrastructure where virtually all traffic into/outof
that city has a city-owned last mile. the need for a "provider" will only be
truly notable for traffic into/outof that city, and it will be impractical
for economic reasons ("anti-lockin") to use "provider assigned" addressing.
the city would have to become an LIR in today's model. ULA and ULA-C could
change all of that, in a bad way, by either requiring a city to run a giant
NAT-PT box and breaking end-to-end on intercity traffic, or by requiring the
"provider" to do so, or by requiring the "provider" to import ULA routes.
to your last question, i do think that residential users will have small
routed networks in the future, rather than a flat neighborhood-wide or even
city-wide L2, simply because the broadcast domain for things like Bonjour
will be too large otherwise, and the market seems to have embraced "routers"
as their preferred security perimeter (vs hosts, bridges, or repeaters.)
(these are the wages of our sins from not separating routing from identity,
and from assuming that the economic principles underlaying IPv4 routing
would still apply in an IPv6 world.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
