RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Seems to me that what you are saying amounts to the statement that PI space cannot exist by definition. If there is address space that is routable on an Internet-wide basis it is by definition routable Internet space and no PI space. If someone needs such space they need to obtain an IP address space allocation and persuade their ISPs to route it. The question of whether this is possible is a policy issue, not a technical issue. Whatever the policy status (people disagree as to what the situation is) it is clearly not going to be solved by a technical hack that does not address the underlying political constraints. -Original Message- From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:35 AM To: IETF-Discussion Subject: Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it) owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. I'm actually not as convinced of this. Yes, they can get routing from their ISP, and the ISP will be happy to sell it to them. Can they get it from their ISP's upstream, and from that ISP's downstreams? To make it into PI space in the usual sense of the word, I think they wind up writing a contract with every ISP in the world that they care about. I think ULAs will exceed the bounds of a single administration, but they will do so on the basis of bilateral contract, not general routing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Seems to me that what you are saying amounts to the statement that PI space cannot exist by definition. If there is address space that is routable on an Internet-wide basis it is by definition routable Internet space and no PI space. There can be such a thing as PI space that is treated differently than PA space. But anyone who thinks that having a PI prefix means that his prefix advertisements will be accepted in perpetuity by every IPv6 network is deluded. Sooner or later, you're going to have to pay _somebody_ to get that prefix routed. And the amount may well increase over time, perhaps drastically. And if you don't keep making those payments you're not going to be reachable anymore. So you can pay your ISP for PA space (along with connectivity) or you can pay somebody else (maybe many somebodys) for PI space in everyone's routing table. In either case you should design your network to be able to renumber in case you want to change who you're doing business with, or are forced to change your prefix. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. I'm actually not as convinced of this. Yes, they can get routing from their ISP, and the ISP will be happy to sell it to them. Can they get it from their ISP's upstream, and from that ISP's downstreams? To make it into PI space in the usual sense of the word, I think they wind up writing a contract with every ISP in the world that they care about. I think ULAs will exceed the bounds of a single administration, but they will do so on the basis of bilateral contract, not general routing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On 19-sep-2007, at 21:06, Tony Hain wrote: It is clear that people on this list have never really run a network as they appear to be completely missing the point, but there is no reason to respond to each individually... [why ULA-C is not a problem] I agree 100% ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On 19-sep-2007, at 22:51, Thomas Narten wrote: And owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love your business. I used to work at a large ISP with exactly these kinds of sales people. They have a hard time taking no for an answer from the engineers, but when the engineers say sure we can do it but it isn't going to work and then, lo and behold, it doesn't work, they tend to catch on. I.e., you can pay YOUR ISP to route your ULAs, but that doesn't mean the next ISP is going to accept those advertisements. Obviously unbelievable amounts of money will make a difference here, but how does it make sense to go visit all the largest ISPs handing out money if you can get a PI or PA block much cheaper and easier? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
And owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love your business. I used to work at a large ISP with exactly these kinds of sales people. They have a hard time taking no for an answer from the engineers, but when the engineers say sure we can do it but it isn't going to work and then, lo and behold, it doesn't work, they tend to catch on. I.e., you can pay YOUR ISP to route your ULAs, but that doesn't mean the next ISP is going to accept those advertisements. my experience is that users do get smarter over time. it just takes a long time. the problem is that they're being conditioned to accept that something will work by early behavior of ISPs, when it won't work in the long term. here's the deal: if you get a PA block, it will fail to work if you change ISPs or if the ISP is forced to renumber. if you get a PI block or ULA block, it will fail to work when the ISPs routing complexity gets too great and you can't afford to pay them to route your prefix anymore. so absent some kind of indirection between what hosts see and what ISPs route on, neither arrangement is permanent and neither avoids the need to renumber. Obviously unbelievable amounts of money will make a difference here, but how does it make sense to go visit all the largest ISPs handing out money if you can get a PI or PA block much cheaper and easier? when push comes to shove, I'm not convinced that it will be cheaper to get ISPs to route PI blocks than to route ULA blocks. unless they're somehow aggregatable. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. I'm actually not as convinced of this. Yes, they can get routing from their ISP, and the ISP will be happy to sell it to them. Can they get it from their ISP's upstream, and from that ISP's downstreams? To make it into PI space in the usual sense of the word, I think they wind up writing a contract with every ISP in the world that they care about. Paul Wilson and Geoff Huston wrote an article a while back entitled Competitive Addressing (http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-04/compete.html) that talked about competion on policy resulting in policy dilution. While the thrust of the proposal they were responding to was different, there are some parallels. I.e., that when you get people entities on policy, and the incentives favor increase revenue rather than Good of the Internet the bottom line, lowest common denominator tends to win - even to the detriment of common sense. A key point here is that when it comes to sales and marketing, it's problematic when your competitor says we offer X, if you yourself don't. Given the commodity nature of ISP service, it doesn't take long before everyone is offering similar terms, even if there are technically bad implications (they won't kick in until next quarter anyway). There is often a rather large disconnect between what the operators in the trenches think is a Good Idea and what the Sales Marketing side of an organization think is necessary to remain profitable (or increase market share, etc.). And please note, I'm channeling what I have heard, from both speakers and from hallway chatter at RIR meetings, and this is from people that have been around a long time and have been (or still are) in the trenches operating networks, so to speak. So this is more than just a theoretical concern. The concern is that pretty soon, everyone will route ULAs because they feel like they are at a competitive disadvantage if others are doing so and they are not. And that would a huge mess. And what if only _some_ of the ISPs routed them? We'd still have a mess, because now we'd have a Balkanized Internet, where univeral connectivity wasn't the norm anymore. I think ULAs will exceed the bounds of a single administration, but they will do so on the basis of bilateral contract, not general routing. I've made that argument in the past too, but there are others who just don't think it is that simple or will end there. Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Narten wrote: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not rocket science to guess that networks will favor their own customers, the networks with which they have explicit agreements, and the networks from which their customers derive the most value. That probably puts most ULAs and PIs fairly far down in the preference list. Actually, my read of arguments coming from those opposed to ULAs is that a good number of folk are worried that the some, if not many, ULAs would be pretty high up on the preference list. I.e., those hosting content that has become popular. And owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love your business. And then the simple notion of filtering all ULA space goes out the window and we have huge mess, that involves even more pressures to accept more routes (despite the limitations on technology), etc. You may disagree with that scenario, but it is one that does concern people in the operational community and is one reason why the proposal is currently wedged. Actually I don't disagree with the scenario at all; in fact I think it's exactly what I envision. I just don't see why it's such a horrible thing. Does Balkanization of the Internet mean anything to you? What I see as happening when the owners of those services go to ISPs and say we'd like to have these ULAs be routed is this: The ISPs say Great, and we'd love to route them for you. However, as we are sure you know, routing table space is scarce, and routing updates are expensive, and ULAs aren't aggregatable. So it costs a lot to route them, not just for us but for other ISPs also. There are brokers who lease routing table space in ISPs all over the world, and they'll sublease a routing table slot for your ULA prefix - for a price. But you'll be competing with lots of services for a small number of routing table entries, and they go to the highest bidders. With all due respect, what ivory tower are you living in? I really think you need to go to an RIR meeting sometime and actually _listen_ to what is said and have a _dialog_ with some of those operators you have been so quick to dismiss in previous postings. You might find that some of them are actually trying to keep the Internet working and believe as much as you do in an open Internet for all... They whole idea that we can have a market of routing slots and that people will pay for routability is a nice idea, except that after 10+ years of talking about it, no one has even the remotest idea of how to make it happen in practice. Well, not unless we have a new world order, ISPs (and the entire DFZ) become subject to significant regulation where policies about routing slots can be set, etc. Is that where you think we need to go? There are certainly parties that would be thrilled to have the Internet move in that direction... But be careful what you wish for... Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not rocket science to guess that networks will favor their own customers, the networks with which they have explicit agreements, and the networks from which their customers derive the most value. That probably puts most ULAs and PIs fairly far down in the preference list. Actually, my read of arguments coming from those opposed to ULAs is that a good number of folk are worried that the some, if not many, ULAs would be pretty high up on the preference list. I.e., those hosting content that has become popular. And owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love your business. And then the simple notion of filtering all ULA space goes out the window and we have huge mess, that involves even more pressures to accept more routes (despite the limitations on technology), etc. You may disagree with that scenario, but it is one that does concern people in the operational community and is one reason why the proposal is currently wedged. Actually I don't disagree with the scenario at all; in fact I think it's exactly what I envision. I just don't see why it's such a horrible thing. Does Balkanization of the Internet mean anything to you? Yes. But that's in nobody's interest. People will work to make their sites reachable by as wide an audience as they think is interested, and they'll use the best mechanisms they can find to do so. And I'm not convinced that some ULAs or PIs being routed through the core will result in Balkanization of the Internet. What I see as happening when the owners of those services go to ISPs and say we'd like to have these ULAs be routed is this: The ISPs say Great, and we'd love to route them for you. However, as we are sure you know, routing table space is scarce, and routing updates are expensive, and ULAs aren't aggregatable. So it costs a lot to route them, not just for us but for other ISPs also. There are brokers who lease routing table space in ISPs all over the world, and they'll sublease a routing table slot for your ULA prefix - for a price. But you'll be competing with lots of services for a small number of routing table entries, and they go to the highest bidders. With all due respect, what ivory tower are you living in? We're all standing in the dark feeling different parts of an elephant, trying to make sense of the whole thing by talking to one another. I really think you need to go to an RIR meeting sometime and actually _listen_ to what is said and have a _dialog_ with some of those operators you have been so quick to dismiss in previous postings. You might find that some of them are actually trying to keep the Internet working and believe as much as you do in an open Internet for all... Of course they are. From their own points-of-view about what works well. The elephant analogy applies to them also. They whole idea that we can have a market of routing slots and that people will pay for routability is a nice idea, except that after 10+ years of talking about it, no one has even the remotest idea of how to make it happen in practice. Well, not unless we have a new world order, ISPs (and the entire DFZ) become subject to significant regulation where policies about routing slots can be set, etc. Is that where you think we need to go? There are certainly parties that would be thrilled to have the Internet move in that direction... But be careful what you wish for... No, it's not where I think I need to go. The point is only that sooner or later there will be pushback associated with routing pain, and when that pushback happens people will look to solve their problems in other ways. Of course, we would like to avoid getting into a dead end where there's no good way to solve the problem from where we've ended up. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On 20-sep-2007, at 14:42, Thomas Narten wrote: A key point here is that when it comes to sales and marketing, it's problematic when your competitor says we offer X, if you yourself don't. Given the commodity nature of ISP service, it doesn't take long before everyone is offering similar terms, even if there are technically bad implications [...] The concern is that pretty soon, everyone will route ULAs because they feel like they are at a competitive disadvantage if others are doing so and they are not. And that would a huge mess. The point you're missing is that one ISP can't provide global reachability for a prefix, you only get this if everyone cooperates. That just isn't going to happen unless someone with a huge amount of clout is going to force the issue. If Google wants to be reachable over ULA space then people may open up their filters. If it's IBM or Boeing, nobody is going to care. And to people who can get PI or PA space, there is no point in forcing the issue, because even if they're successful in the end, it's going to be painful and expensive for them, too. But even if it happens: who cares? And what if only _some_ of the ISPs routed them? We'd still have a mess, because now we'd have a Balkanized Internet, where univeral connectivity wasn't the norm anymore. That sounds like an apt description of the current IPv6 internet. It works well in Europe and Asia, but North America is a wasteland: $ ftp ftp.ietf.org Trying 2610:a0:c779:1a::9c9a:1095... ftp: connect to address 2610:a0:c779:1a::9c9a:1095: Operation timed out Trying 156.154.16.149... Connected to ftp.ietf.org. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Does Balkanization of the Internet mean anything to you? Yes. NAT, BGP route filtering, bogon lists, firewalls, Community of Interest extranets such as SITA, Automotive Network Exchange, RadianzNet. And let's not forget the IP VPN services that companies like Verizon sell as a flagship product. It is probable that there are more hosts today in the Balkanized portions of the Internet than on the public portions. --Michael Dillon P.S. Not to mention sites that are more than 30 hops away from each other. I've seen traceroutes that go up to 27 hops so I imagine that the hopcount diameter is once again becoming an issue as it was prior to 1995. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to mention sites that are more than 30 hops away from each other. I've seen traceroutes that go up to 27 hops so I imagine that the hopcount diameter is once again becoming an issue as it was prior to 1995. That was in many respects a host problem - hosts initialized TTLS to 32, and in so doing limited themselves to that diameter. I believe most hosts now set the magic number to 64. Do we believe that we are pushing that boundary? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Ted Hardie wrote: The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re-examine that statement. Your second statement: From my point of view, ULA-C differs from 4193 because I presume a ULA-C will give me whois and reverse DNS. I've been told that sixxs.net is doing whois, but I have to know to ask whois.sixxs.net for the information. Delegating c.f.ip6.arpa to sixxs.net would also be required for me to take 4193 seriously. (And d.f.ip6.arpa..) I am very happy to use a ULA for my needs, and a PA for the part of my network that needs to talk to outside my AS. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
the concern i heard wrt ULA-G (and therefore wrt ULA-C upon with -G is based) is that the filtering recommendations in RFC 4193 were as unlikely to work as the filtering recommendations in RFC 1597 and RFC 1918. Given the overwhelming success of RFC 1918 it only requires a very small percentage of sites leaking routes to make it seem like a big problem. This is normal. When you scale up anything, small nits happen frequently enough to become significant issues. But that is not a reason to get rid of RFC 1918. The fact that the filtering recommendations of ULA-C and ULA-G have the same flaws as RFC 1918 is a not sufficient reason to reject them wholesale. i realized in that moment, that ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some day, the people who are then responsible for global address policy and global internet operations, will end the tyranny of the core by which we cripple all network owners in their available choices of address space, based solely on the tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system. but we appear not to be the generation who will make that leap. I think that even today, if you analyze Internet traffic on a global scale, you will see that there is a considerable percentage of it which bypasses the core. Let the core use filters to protect the DFZ because the DFZ is no longer necessary for a workable Internet. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Tony Hain wrote: snip If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if you don't want them. The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. PI and ULA-C are for completly different purpose. and both will be leaked no mather what we do, you can't force someone to never route it... what you can do is to make it less desirable to do so. -- -- Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key! --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: snip someone on ARIN PPML accused ULA-C (and therefore ULA-G) of being an end run around PA/PI by which they meant a way to get the benefits of PI without qualifying for the costs imposed by PI on everyone else in the DFZ. i realized in that moment, that ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some day, the people who are then responsible for global address policy and global internet operations, will end the tyranny of the core by which we cripple all network owners in their available choices of address space, based solely on the tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system. but we appear not to be the generation who will make that leap. I wouldn't be giving up that easy... still have time until march 2008 :p (old ipv6-wg, now v6man-wg timeframe for deciding upton ula-c/g) :) -- -- Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key! --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some day, the people who are then responsible for global address policy and global internet operations, will end the tyranny of the core by which we cripple all network owners in their available choices of address space, based solely on the tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system. snip What I hear you saying, in your references to the DFZ/core, is that you aren't happy with the notion that there's a large part of the internetwork in which more or less all destinations are reachable? If so, in effect, you're visualizing a system in which reachability is less ubiquitous? I.e. for a given destination address X, there will be significant parts of the internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X - and not because of access controls which explicitly prevent it, but simply because that part of the internetwork doesn't care to carry routing information for that destination. Is that right? what I read into it is... the future internet might not be structured as it is today, we might get a internet on the side which don't touch the DFZ at all. Mostly regionbased traffic... -- -- Roger Jorgensen | - ROJO9-RIPE - RJ85P-NORID [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - IPv6 is The Key! --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
what I read into it is... the future internet might not be structured as it is today, we might get a internet on the side which don't touch the DFZ at all. Mostly regionbased traffic... WRONG! The future Internet will be structured the SAME as it is today, mostly region-based traffic. The main exception to that rule is when a there are countries in different regions which share the same language. For instance there will always be lots of interregional traffic between France and Canada, or between Portugal and Brazil. People who are in the IETF have a warped view of reality because we all speak English, and since there are English speaking countries in North America, Europe, southern Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region, it seems like everything is centralised. In addition, English is the 21st century lingua-franca so it will always drive a certain level of international traffic to any country, but moreso to countries like Norway where the people often learn to speak English better than native English-speaking people. Go to a country like Russia and it's a different story. Few people learn English or any other language well enough to use it. There are no vaste hordes of English-speaking tourists like in Spain or Italy. But there is still a vast Internet deployment for the most part separate from the English-speaking Internet. There the major search engines are Rambler and Yandeks. Internet exchanges are located in Moskva, Sankt Peterburg, Nizhniy Novgorod, Samara, Perm', Ekaterinburg, and Novosibirsk. It's a basic fact of economics that the majority of transactions in any point on the globe will always be with nearby points. That's why the USA buys more goods from Canada than from any other country, in spite of the fact that Canada is 1/10th the population. Communications volume follows transaction volume, and therefore, the only reason that the Internet was not more regional a long time ago, is that the process of shifting communications from legacy networks to the Internet is a slow process. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. ULA-C/G leaks will not collide with each other. This means that, unlike RFC1918 which is _impossible_ for ISPs to route for multiple customers, ULA-C/G routes _can_ be routed publicly. Any prohibition on doing so by the IETF or RIRs can (and IMHO, will) be overridden by customers paying for those routes to be accepted. Which would argue that the only realistic way to make *absolutely certain* that IPv6 private addresses truly *cannot* be used out in the 'main' internetwork is to allocate the same ranges of addresses to multiple parties. Anything else is just PI with a few speedbumps, and a different label. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Noel Chiappa wrote: From: Stephen Sprunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] .. ULA-C/G leaks will not collide with each other. This means that, unlike RFC1918 which is _impossible_ for ISPs to route for multiple customers, ULA-C/G routes _can_ be routed publicly. Any prohibition on doing so by the IETF or RIRs can (and IMHO, will) be overridden by customers paying for those routes to be accepted. Which would argue that the only realistic way to make *absolutely certain* that IPv6 private addresses truly *cannot* be used out in the 'main' internetwork is to allocate the same ranges of addresses to multiple parties. Perhaps, but then we end up with all of the problems associated with ambiguous addresses, and we lose all of the advantage of IPv6. Anything else is just PI with a few speedbumps, and a different label. Maybe, maybe not. In practice, today, not every IPv4 address prefix is PI. Today, the length of your IPv4 prefix has some influence on whether your prefix gets advertised. There may not be an absolute boundary, but there is a barrier nonetheless. So I can certainly imagine that it would be harder to get ULA prefixes as widely advertised as PA prefixes. How much harder, I cannot say. So the speedbumps might be useful. But people wanting to absolutely forbid any ISP from advertising a ULA prefix will probably be disappointed. That doesn't bother me, because I don't think it's necessary to have that absolute prohibition in order for networks to push back on routing table size and routing complexity. Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not rocket science to guess that networks will favor their own customers, the networks with which they have explicit agreements, and the networks from which their customers derive the most value. That probably puts most ULAs and PIs fairly far down in the preference list. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Ted Hardie wrote: The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re- examine that statement. Your second statement: f you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. Also doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. There is a set prefix of ULAs now. Filtering it on is already possible (and I heartily encourage same!). Adding ULA-C doesn't make that easier or harder, and it does nothing else that would enforce keeping private space private. None of the ULA-C proposals I have seen came with a police force or standing army of clue-bat wielding networking engineers. It is clear that people on this list have never really run a network as they appear to be completely missing the point, but there is no reason to respond to each individually... Yes any one clueless ISP may announce ULA-C space from a customer, but there is no need for any of their peers to accept it. If the only choice is PI, there is no way for the peer ISP to know what should have been filtered out and the entire system has to deal with the leakage. Claims about cutting off long prefixes are unrealistic because there will be people in there that received PI expecting it to be routed so the RIRs would then have to hand out even larger blocks for routed PI, forcing the cost for renumbering onto people that had nothing to do with creating the problem. People want unique private space. If you force them to get it from PI blocks there is no way to sort out what should be globally routed from what should be private, or localized to just the customer's ISP. Putting a well-known label on it allows anyone that does not want the excess to easily identify it and kill it off. Using ULA-C puts the burden of getting space routed globally back onto the originating network, because they will either run both ULA-C PI, or renumber. Either way people who just want PI are not impacted by people that start with ULA-C and change their minds later, and the DFZ does not have to deal with leaked crap because it is easy to identify. This should not even be a debated issue, because ULA-C is just a way to group end site assignments into a block that is easy to filter out of the global routing system. As I said, those that oppose this are effectively forcing an unnecessary burden on the DFZ, which will result in the anti-PI camp saying 'I told you so' when the inevitable leakage happens. Yes 1918 leakage happens, but that is a self-inflicted wound and easy to correct, as ULA-C leakage would be. Leakage of PI that should have been kept local is impossible to detect or fix by the recipient. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Thomas Narten wrote: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sooner or later, routing scalability will be a problem in IPv6. When that happens, each network will pick some means to decide which prefixes get advertised within its network and which get filtered. It's not rocket science to guess that networks will favor their own customers, the networks with which they have explicit agreements, and the networks from which their customers derive the most value. That probably puts most ULAs and PIs fairly far down in the preference list. Actually, my read of arguments coming from those opposed to ULAs is that a good number of folk are worried that the some, if not many, ULAs would be pretty high up on the preference list. I.e., those hosting content that has become popular. And owners of those services will simply go to ISPs and say route this, or I'll find someone else who will. And the sales and marketing departments of many ISPs will fall over each other to be the first to say why certainly we'd love your business. And then the simple notion of filtering all ULA space goes out the window and we have huge mess, that involves even more pressures to accept more routes (despite the limitations on technology), etc. You may disagree with that scenario, but it is one that does concern people in the operational community and is one reason why the proposal is currently wedged. Actually I don't disagree with the scenario at all; in fact I think it's exactly what I envision. I just don't see why it's such a horrible thing. What I see as happening when the owners of those services go to ISPs and say we'd like to have these ULAs be routed is this: The ISPs say Great, and we'd love to route them for you. However, as we are sure you know, routing table space is scarce, and routing updates are expensive, and ULAs aren't aggregatable. So it costs a lot to route them, not just for us but for other ISPs also. There are brokers who lease routing table space in ISPs all over the world, and they'll sublease a routing table slot for your ULA prefix - for a price. But you'll be competing with lots of services for a small number of routing table entries, and they go to the highest bidders. On the other hand, it appears the particular services that you are offering to the general public would work just fine with PA address space. Furthermore, we'll be happy to offer you our graceful transition (tm) service in our contract with you, so that when the term of our contract comes to an end, we'll continue to accept traffic at your old PA addresses and tunnel that traffic to your new addresses for a specified period of overlap - basically the length of your DNS TTLs for those addresses. You can still use ULAs for your internal traffic and - via bilateral agreement - for traffic with other sites. We'd be happy to arrange tunnels to those other sites for routing traffic to and from your ULAs. Or if those destinations are our customers, we'll route those ULAs natively - we just won't advertise them to other networks that we know will filter them. But a lot of sites prefer that their ULAs not be advertised on the public Internet because that lessens the exposure of their non-public services to miscreants. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Jari Arkko wrote: Lixia, I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see, does not exist. Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is labeled. Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling may not correspond to what is actually done with it. If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if you don't want them. The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re-examine that statement. Your second statement: f you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. Also doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. There is a set prefix of ULAs now. Filtering it on is already possible (and I heartily encourage same!). Adding ULA-C doesn't make that easier or harder, and it does nothing else that would enforce keeping private space private. None of the ULA-C proposals I have seen came with a police force or standing army of clue-bat wielding networking engineers. Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Tony Hain wrote: [..] The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. I don't think ULA-C makes sense. We have a RIR system in place. These RIRs are supposed to provide address space for people/organizations who can justify a need for that address space. Clearly everybody does want this address space to be unique and a lot of people for various reasons (statistics, contact info, who it belongs to, which country, etc) want to have at least an entry somewhere in a database that is publicly available. As at least ARIN, APNIC and AfriNIC have policies in place now, which break the global policy that once existed, to provide /48's and upward to individual sites. These sites might or might not be (completely) connected to the Internet, there is no requirement anywhere to do so. As such, there is already a perfect method of getting globally unique and registered address space. As such, there is no need for ULA-C. Which is good, as any address space that gets marked as 'special' will be unusable because some people won't ever update filters, which is their problem of course, but it will hurt others. As history has shown that one day or another you will want to connect to the Internet, having those blocks simply come from the RIRs is the perfect way to do it. As for the routing system problem, simple Economics will resolve that. Either Transit Providers will stop accepting certain sized prefixes or they will nicely start charging serious amounts of cash for the routing slots they occupy. In the mean time the great people working on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list will find a great method of avoiding that problem. We are at 900 prefixes in IPv6 and I really don't see it hitting 100k of them any time soon. When it does, then we know that we might need to hurry up a bit. But as the IPv4 tables are already at 230k and are doing fine, I think we can have quite a couple of quiet years before that will become a serious issue, especially when ISPs can always filter if they want. Checking the Looking Glass of GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/) it shows also that quite some ISP's are already attempting de-aggregation of their /32's and even the /20's they have received. Still the basic premise is that they should only be announcing that single prefix and most likely they only connect to you at one/two common points anyway and you won't need their more specifics. As such you can filter on those borders to avoid those few routes. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On Sep 18, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Tony Hain wrote: Jari Arkko wrote: Lixia, I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see, does not exist. Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is labeled. Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling may not correspond to what is actually done with it. If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if you don't want them. I'd agree that, ideally speaking, one would prefer using simple filtering rules. However as Jari already pointed out, whatever label one puts on a prefix may not correspond to what is done with it, *especially* as time goes. (a motto I heard from my high school son, the only thing that does change in life is change :-) and I would not attempt to bundle opinions regarding UCL-C and PI (I saw Ted already showed an example). Furthermore, we are all in this continuing process of understanding their implications in this complex, exciting, and constantly changing Internet. The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. Tony ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
if you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. Also doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense. There is a set prefix of ULAs now. Filtering it on is already possible (and I heartily encourage same!). Adding ULA-C doesn't make that easier or harder, and it does nothing else that would enforce keeping private space private. None of the ULA-C proposals I have seen came with a police force or standing army of clue-bat wielding networking engineers. the concern i heard wrt ULA-G (and therefore wrt ULA-C upon with -G is based) is that the filtering recommendations in RFC 4193 were as unlikely to work as the filtering recommendations in RFC 1597 and RFC 1918. and that with a global registry of whois and in-addr, ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) prefixes and packets would have considerably greater utility when leaked than RFC 1597/1918 prefixes and packets. so with demonstrable ease of leakage and demonstrably higher utility of leakage, nobody anywhere believes that ULA-G (and ULA-G) won't be leaked. on that basis, ULA-G (and ULA-C) are said to be functional equivilents to PI space. i don't like or agree with this reasoning. i'm just saying what i've heard. someone on ARIN PPML accused ULA-C (and therefore ULA-G) of being an end run around PA/PI by which they meant a way to get the benefits of PI without qualifying for the costs imposed by PI on everyone else in the DFZ. i realized in that moment, that ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some day, the people who are then responsible for global address policy and global internet operations, will end the tyranny of the core by which we cripple all network owners in their available choices of address space, based solely on the tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system. but we appear not to be the generation who will make that leap. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On 18-sep-2007, at 17:50, Jeroen Massar wrote: I don't think ULA-C makes sense. We have a RIR system in place. These RIRs are supposed to provide address space for people/organizations who can justify a need for that address space. That's like selling train tickets at the airport. Except for the fraction of a promille of all IP users that have their own portable address space, RIRs don't even talk to IP users who are _connected_ to the internet, let alone those who aren't! It just doesn't make sense to involve the RIRs here. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On 18-sep-2007, at 18:10, Ted Hardie wrote: The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. I am totally against ULA-C, and I am not against PI, so please re- examine that statement. I'm in favor of ULA-C and against the current IPv6 PI policies, so it seems the statement indeed doesn't universally apply... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
From: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ULA-G (and therefore ULA-C) is not an end run around PI space, it's an end run around the DFZ. some day, the people who are then responsible for global address policy and global internet operations, will end the tyranny of the core by which we cripple all network owners in their available choices of address space, based solely on the tempermental fragility of the internet's core routing system. This comment interested me, but I want to make sure I understand what you're getting at. Fully appreciating your comments seems to require reading between the lines somewhat, so if I make a mistake (below) in understanding you, please correct it. What I hear you saying, in your references to the DFZ/core, is that you aren't happy with the notion that there's a large part of the internetwork in which more or less all destinations are reachable? If so, in effect, you're visualizing a system in which reachability is less ubiquitous? I.e. for a given destination address X, there will be significant parts of the internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X - and not because of access controls which explicitly prevent it, but simply because that part of the internetwork doesn't care to carry routing information for that destination. Is that right? Your comment about available choices of address space is more opaque. Are you saying that you'd like parts of the address space to be explicitly given over to such 'not globally routed' functionality? (I assume that you are happy with uniqueness, i.e. you're not proposing allocating the same chunk of address space to two different entities, right?) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
From: Roger Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] a system in which reachability is less ubiquitous? I.e. for a given destination address X, there will be significant parts of the internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X - and not because of access controls which explicitly prevent it, but simply because that part of the internetwork doesn't care to carry routing information for that destination. what I read into it is... the future internet might not be structured as it is today, we might get a internet on the side which don't touch the DFZ at all. Mostly regionbased traffic... Well, that's certainly one structure you could build if you have a system in which there are significant parts of the internetwork from which a packet sent to X will not reach X. Another possibile structure is the kind of thing that Keith mentioned, with industry-specific sections. From a policy standpoint, I don't have any particular feeling about such designs, pro or con. I mean, if people think it's useful to have them, that's not my call to make (and in the past I have produced systems which provided the tools to do exactly that). From a technical point of view, I do wonder if it's really worth the effort required in terms of extra configuration (which is a different point, of course). Instead of simply flooding information about all destinations everywhere, now, for each destination which is no longer visible over a global scope, you basically have to define, via configuration, a boundary which sets the scope outside which that destination is not 'visible' in the routing. That's a non-trivial amount of configuration - especially with today's routing architecture, which has no tools to easy describe/configure such boundaries. So if it's simply being done for efficiency reasons, I wonder whether the complexity/efficiency tradeoff there is worth it. If one has a policy reason to do it, that changes the equation, of course, and those goals may make it worthwhile. (This is all assuming I've correctly understood what he was proposing; the original message was a little short on technical detail.) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 18-sep-2007, at 17:50, Jeroen Massar wrote: I don't think ULA-C makes sense. We have a RIR system in place. These RIRs are supposed to provide address space for people/organizations who can justify a need for that address space. That's like selling train tickets at the airport. Except for the fraction of a promille of all IP users that have their own portable address space, RIRs don't even talk to IP users who are _connected_ to the internet, let alone those who aren't! It just doesn't make sense to involve the RIRs here. The RIRs talk to anyone who submits the appropriate forms. They'll even help you fill out the forms if you can give them enough information to do so. You could even do it by phone or snail mail if you've been living under a rock and still don't have Internet service. ARIN policy, at least, explicitly allows for direct assignments to end sites even if they're not connected -- just like IANA assigned Class A/B/C blocks to disconnected orgs back in the good ol' days. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Thus spake Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jari Arkko wrote: Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling may not correspond to what is actually done with it. If you don't label it there is no clearly agreed way to filter these out if you don't want them. If they're truly local prefixes, they won't need to be filtered in the first place because they won't be advertised. If they're getting advertised, they're not local prefixes and presumably you don't want to filter them because there's someone at the other end who wants you to talk to them. If you don't like PI routes at all, the RIRs have made it easy to filter them by assigning PI out of specific blocks and in much smaller sizes than LIR blocks. To channel Randy for a moment, I encourage my competitors to do this. The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to filter out what would have been ULA-C. I am a vocal supporter of PI and vocal detractor of ULA-C/G. In fact, the first time that ULA-C was proposed, I saw it for what it was (an end-run around the RIRs) and became a PI proponent; before that, I didn't really care either way. Do not stuff words into people's mouths, particularly when they're watching. If you really believe there is going to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private. I believe there will be a routing system problem at some point, and it pains me that I was still forced to support PI anyways because the IETF has utterly failed to produce an alternative that is viable _in the views of the operational community_. However, I do not believe the problem will be due to local routes at all; it will be due to the massive numbers of legitimate routes that having PI causes. However, without PI, there would be no routes at all because IPv6 would be ignored. PI is, unfortunately, the lesser of two evils. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: Roger, On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them supports the proposal). in fact, nobody in the ietf intelligensia supports the proposal. the showstopped is that this appears to many as an end-run around PI, and the fear is that there's no way to prevent it ... The question on the table (and also part of 6man charter) is whether we need an additional type of ULAs, one that is centrally allocated. Such addresses might be useful for a couple of reasons. One reason is that we could guarantee uniqueness, which might be important, e.g., for a company that is running a lot of small company networks as a business, and wants to ensure the address spaces do not collide. But another, more important stated reason was that we should have a way give people address space that is different from PI in the sense that those addresses are not recommended to be placed in the global routing table. Arguments against such address space relate to the following issues: - The costs for any centrally allocated space are likely going to be the same, so what is the incentive for the customers to allocate ULA-C instead of PI? - There is no routing economy that would push back on advertising more than the necessary prefixes, so what is the incentive that keeps the ULA-C out of the global routing table as years go by? (When the companies that allocated ULA-C grow, merge, need to talk with other companies, etc.) The end result of our discussions was that we clearly do not have agreement on the way forward, and we settled for writing a draft about the issues instead. That is still in the works. I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see, does not exist. Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is labeled. Lixia ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Lixia, I'm just catching up with this thread today: If I summarize my understanding from the above in one sentence: there seems a perceived difference between PI and ULA-C prefixes, which, as far as I can see, does not exist. Whether a unique prefix is/not globally routable is determined by whether it gets injected into the routing system, no matter how it is labeled. Right. Or we can try to label it, but that labeling may not correspond to what is actually done with it. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)
Roger, On 9/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt has my thoughts on this, which i've appropriated without permission from hinden, huston, and narten and inaccurately failed to remove their names from (since none of them supports the proposal). in fact, nobody in the ietf intelligensia supports the proposal. the showstopped is that this appears to many as an end-run around PI, and the fear is that there's no way to prevent it are they still refusing to put it into the queue or do anything? Even after several month? Well let really hope that will change now when/if IPv6-wg change the name to 6man and we can start working again! For the record, we had a series of discussions among authors, Paul, experts, etc on the ULA topic right after IETF-69 to try to see if we can sort out what the problems are and move forward. For background, we already have ULAs than can be allocated by the sites themselves. These are defined in RFC 4193. The question on the table (and also part of 6man charter) is whether we need an additional type of ULAs, one that is centrally allocated. Such addresses might be useful for a couple of reasons. One reason is that we could guarantee uniqueness, which might be important, e.g., for a company that is running a lot of small company networks as a business, and wants to ensure the address spaces do not collide. But another, more important stated reason was that we should have a way give people address space that is different from PI in the sense that those addresses are not recommended to be placed in the global routing table. Arguments against such address space relate to the following issues: - The costs for any centrally allocated space are likely going to be the same, so what is the incentive for the customers to allocate ULA-C instead of PI? - There is no routing economy that would push back on advertising more than the necessary prefixes, so what is the incentive that keeps the ULA-C out of the global routing table as years go by? (When the companies that allocated ULA-C grow, merge, need to talk with other companies, etc.) The end result of our discussions was that we clearly do not have agreement on the way forward, and we settled for writing a draft about the issues instead. That is still in the works. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
