On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:17:20AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:25:46 -0400 > Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > While I think this is an improvement, unless the distribution of ULA-C is > > > no cheaper > > > and no easier to get than GUA, I still think there is reason to believe > > > that it is likely > > > ULA-C will become de facto GUA over the long term. > > > > > > As such, I still think the current draft is a bad idea absent appropriate > > > protections in > > > RIR policy. > > > > I agree with owen, mostly... except I think we should just push RIR's > > to make GUA accessible to folks that need ipv6 adress space, > > regardless of connectiivty to thegreater 'internet' (for some > > definition of that thing). > > > > ULA of all types causes headaches on hosts, routers, etc. There is no > > reason to go down that road, just use GUA (Globally Unique Addresses). > > > > So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep > using globals that now aren't yours? > > I'm also curious about these headaches. What are they? >
I'm so not creative enough to compose this whole missive in TLAs... perhaps some day. Some bright blub got tired of typing out "Globally Unique Addresses) and so started using the TLA/GUA. Which eventually got me to thinking. Technically, all IP addresses are globally unique. There is only one of them. 172.14.3.42/32 is a GUA. There are however, two other vectors which the community seems to want and we talk around them a whole bunch. Perhaps we should explicitly make them part of the conversation. ) A GUA has a single authoritative chain of custody... e.g. the community recognizes that only Bill Manning's Bait and Sushi shoppe (AS 66,666) is authorized to inject routes for and sink traffic to 172.14.3.0/24 The whole rPKI construct is built to support this idea. Now some prefixes are defined to -NOT- have a single authoriative chain of custody, witness RFC 1918. And NAT makes matters "fuzzier" ... bringing scoping into the mix - but I'll stick by the postualte that this single authoritative chain of custody is a key point in understanding how folk think of IP stewardship ... and (THIS IS IMPORTANT) ... there is this strong idea that a short custody chain is prefered over a long one. ) A GUA is temporally bound**... e.g. the community recognizes that for any given GUA, there is a temporal bounding on the chain of custody. DHCP is a canonical example for end/leaf sites, where GUAs are leased out for (comparitavely) brief time periods. ISPs lease space to their clients for longer periods, and RIRs are (mostly) binding a chain of custody to annual cycles. For some legacy space, the temporal binding is of -much- longer duration. so... I might argue that the IANA/RIR/LIR/Enterprise chain has the renumbering concern that you raise, while a IPR/Enterprise chain is much shorter and has a smaller renumbering concern. and -IF- the permise and details of the draft are to be beleived, then a delegation from that space is just as much assured of global uniqueness than space from an RIR. ** The Temporaly Unique Address/TUA !!!