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
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
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
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%
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
