> 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.
But, very small sites that get ULA-Cs will realize the benefit of prefix portability and with no routing table scaling issues in the DFZ. > 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. I thought the ULA-C registry was supposed to be something very simple like a robot. > 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. I don't quite know how to characterize this or compare it, but the cost to the small sites is an altogether different metric than the cost to the DNS. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -----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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
