Hi Jeroen, On 27.09.2011 15:51, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally >> assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers >> (e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments) >> would need internal/closed IPv6-based networks (maybe only for internal >> control and management), that have no connection to the Internet. > > Why can't they request a prefix from their RIR?
This is an option, as it was when we deprecated site-local addresses, but we have defined ULAs for several reasons that IMHO also apply to the described use cases. > RIRs are already "Central registries" in the broadest sense of the word. I thought that these addresses are primarily intended to get routed in the Internet. I'm not familiar with the RIR policies, so if it's allowed: fine! > [..] >> On the other hand the currently defined ULA format is probably also not >> very well-suited for that purpose, since it is intended to be used for >> sites, but these products rarely require ~2^16 subnets, i.e., an 8 bit >> subnet ID may be sufficient for most purposes. > [..] >> Thus, for this case the >> currently defined ULA format is too restrictive requiring a 16-bit >> subnet ID. > > Then why not have the organisation needing and hardcoding those prefixes > calculate ULAs in /48s but splitting them up into subprefixes for > multiple products. Would be an option, but collisions are still possible. > A better question maybe is if those components in such a prefix ever > have to talk outside of that closed network. If they don't, why bother > having a different unique prefix for every little private network? As I said, there may be cases when some of these networks get coupled/merged somehow, still not requiring to get globally connected though. >> Letting manufacturers ask for a large PI prefix from the >> normal routing space does not make much sense either, since it is not >> intended to be ever routed in the Internet. > > The RIR effectively only acts as a registration point thus guaranteeing > that address space allocated in their region, from them, is unique. They > do not and cannot guarantee anything regarding routing on the Internet. Sure they can't, but I wasn't sure that they have some requirements (policies) for requesting the address space. Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
