On 21 Jun 2007, at 10:06pm, Scott Leibrand wrote:
[...]
If ULA-C is not available, I believe many of those networks will
instead push for PI space. Once they get it, the path of least
resistance is announcing it globally, so most recipients of PI
space will do so, increasing pressure on the routing table and
requiring more rapid upgrades (to replace all Supervisor2's in
Cisco 6500/7600s running BGP, for example).
History shows us that lots of legacy IPv4 assignments are not visible
in routeviews, RIS and other BGP route collecting projects. Why would
IPv6 be different?
If ULA-C is available, I believe many networks will be able to use
it to number their internal infrastructure, and simply use some
sort of NAT to translate that into their current PA block when
traffic sourced from their routers passes out onto the Internet.
They can dynamically assign their customers/hosts PA space with
DHCP, so that end-to-end connectivity never needs to be NAT'd.
Much of this can also be done with ULA-L, but I believe that the
lack of "ownership" and the inability to do proper reverse DNS
makes that solution not quite as good as ULA-C for many networks.
I wouldn't be surprised if some folks saw the lack of an external
root for regular ULAs as an advantage. And while I appreciate that
routing table growth is expensive, should we be encouraging people to
NAT the interfaces on their internal routing infrastructure?
Regards,
--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
