On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Roger Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(we are looking at something between 500 and upto 10 000 or
more unique ULA-C/G blocks for or network and use)
That's going to get expensive, no matter how little the central authority
charges. Well, unless the central authority does bulk discounts, but I see
no reason they would since there's no economy of scale in issuing thousands
of prefixes that can't be aggregated, unlike aggregatable PI/PA space.
Did you notice I didnt mention the price, cheap or not one time in my
mail? We know it will cost so we dont consider that yet. Make ULA-C/G more
expensive than PI and we likely will use PI, make PI more expensive and it
is not an options. You see the price dont mather! It is the technical
options and possibilities that are important.
and we do NOT care about aggregation much either since it is our own
internal network we are talking about.
In short, none of the two, economy or aggregation, are important when
talking about ULA-C/G. (none of them should be announced to DMZ anyway so
why wasting time on that?:))
I guess other enterprises see this the same way. They simply
want INTERNAL unique IP addresses with global reverse DNS
options, nothing less, nothing more. They probably wont bother
to become LIR just for internal IP, their ISP(s) provide them
with their internet connectivity, and they can probably easy
justify to get PI if they want that.
RIPE hasn't caught up to ARIN yet, apparently. ARIN provides for direct PI
assignments to end users with very minimal qualifications and no need to
become an LIR (which get a /32 at minimum). /48 is the minimum direct
assignment size, and while you do have to "justify" a shorter prefix, all
requests are approved. Ebay, for instance, just got a /41. And, while
there's a nontrivial fee for the initial assignment, the annual maintenance
(regardless of how large the block is) is only $100/yr. I doubt your central
authority is going to charge less than that for 10,000+ distinct blocks.
AfriNIC, I've read, has a similar policy except that the prefix must be
advertised publicly within one year; ARIN has no requirement that the prefix
_ever_ be advertised.
I do not see a requirement to pass ULA-C/G merely because some RIRs have
failed to meet their respective communities' needs. If you're unhappy with
what RIPE offers, either show up and propose policy changes or
(less-preferred) route around the failure and get space from ARIN.
you totaly missread what I wrote. A PI policy will most likely be in place
in RIPE region to at some point soon, thats why I said we could choice
from PI or ULA-C/G.
Did you also notice that I said we have already got our own PA assignment,
a /32, for all our external needs?
Almost all ULA-C/G usecases can be solved by using either PA or PI type of
addresses from the RIRs but why not give the enterprises an options to use
something similar to RFC1918 addresses? Thats what we are talking about,
another set of addresses for inter-network use, NOT DFZ/global Internet
usage.
(sure there is a chance someone will start announcing them to the DFZ for
some stupid reasons, then we can either hope the other ISP are smart
enough to show the RFC we maybe will publish and reject it, or we can
simply depreciate the addresses, or just live with it. But that chance is
small anyway so why bother using time on that?)
--
------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
