On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 3:10 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > 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?
I don't think so, though I'd add 2 bits to your 1 and 3 options: 1) we ought to make getting PI easy, easy enough that the other options just don't make sense. 2) ULA brings with it (as do any options that include multiple addresses) host-stack complexity and address-selection issues... 'do I use ULA here or GUA when talking to the remote host?' -chris
