On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith <na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> 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?
use pi space, request it from your local friendly RIR. > I'm also curious about these headaches. What are they? do I use that ula-* address to talk to someone or another GUA address? how do I decide? what about to business partners? one address... much simpler, much less to screw up. -chris > >> -Chris >> >