On Oct 20, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Graham Beneke wrote: > On 21/10/2010 03:49, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> On 10/20/2010 5:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> Part 2 will be when the first provider accepts a large sum of money to >>> route it within their public network between multiple sites owned by >>> the same customer. >> >> Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4? > > I have seen this in some small providers. Doesn't last long since the chance > of collision is high. It then becomes a VPN. > Correct... The only reason it isn't is because of the high chance of collision. Due to virtually guaranteed overlapping address conflicts, it doesn't work with RFC-1918.
ULA solves that "problem" by providing probably unique addresses. >>> Part 3 will be when that same provider (or some other provider in the >>> same boat) takes the next step and starts trading routes of ULA space >>> with other provider(s). >> >> Is this happening now with RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4? > > I've seen this too. Once again small providers who pretty quickly get caught > out by collisions. > > The difference is that ULA could take years or even decades to catch someone > out with a collision. By then we'll have a huge mess. > Exactly. Owen