On Oct 31, 2010, at 6:45 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>> "If Woody had gone straight to a ULA prefix, this would never have >>> happened..." >> Or better yet, if Woody had gone straight to PI, he wouldn't have this >> problem, either. > ula really never should an option... except for a short lived lab, nothing > permanent.
Seems to me the options are: 1) PI, resulting in no renumbering costs, but RIR costs and routing table bloat 2) PA w/o ULA, resulting in full site renumbering cost, no routing table bloat 3) PA w/ ULA, resulting in externally visible-only renumbering cost, no routing table bloat Folks appear to have voted with their feet that (2) isn't really viable -- they got that particular T-shirt with IPv4 and have been uniformly against getting the IPv6 version, at last as far as I can tell. My impression (which may be wrong) is that with respect to (1), a) most folks can't justify a PI request to the RIR, b) most folks don't want to deal with the RIR administrative hassle, c) most ISPs would prefer to not have to replace their routers. That would seem to leave (3). Am I missing an option? Regards, -drc
