Everything comes at some cost.  Small sites will be able to get PA from
their providers.  The 'cost' will be renumbering if they change
providers.  

With ULA-C the cost will be in administration.  ULA-C will have the same
administrative load as PI and PA space, so I don't understand why the
cost would be cheaper.  In fact if ULA-C is announcable via DNS the
aggregate cost of managing many small allocation blocks at the root DNS
servers will be higher than managing the relatively fewer large blocks
of PI/PA, so in reality ULA-C costs should be the same or greater.  The
issue is not cost per IP address but cost per database entry.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:19 PM
> To: Jeroen Massar; Leo Vegoda
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Brian E Carpenter; Pekka Savola
> Subject: RE: ULA and WAN-routability
> 
> > In effect one can indeed also use ULA-C kind of addresses as 
> > "Identifiers" as they are truly globally unique just like 
> PI, but that 
> > is the whole point why ULA-C is futile: they _are_ just like PI ;) 
> > Except that they will be carved out of a special prefix and 
> handled in 
> > a strange way. Also as they are not "Internet addresses" 
> but intended 
> > for disconnected sites and thus should never traverse the Internet 
> > except for in a VPN in the first place.
> 
> Also except that they are attainable by very small sites at a
> (presumably) nominal cost. (Plus, the "except for in a VPN" 
> is likely to be good enough for the kinds of connections 
> ULA-C sites will want to make.)
> 
> Fred
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to