North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
On 8-nov-04, at 20:25, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I will post a very brief summary of my objections, for the first (unique-local):
Well, if they can manage to interconnect all those networks a tiny amount of coordination isn't too much to ask for. Also, with the proper hashing this shouldn't be much of a problem even without coordination. Yes, no coordination and bad hashing won't work, but guess what: don't do that.- I believe the math is wrong on the rate of collisions, primarily because it assumes in a large organization there is a central coordination function to pick and distribute these addresses. However, since the whole point of "unique local" addresses is that there need be no coordination, I can easily see a case where a large conglomerate (Ford, GE, whatever) coming together with another will have both sides bringing hundreds, if not thoundsands of prefixes to the table as each division or other subgroup picks their own.
- I think the likelyhood people will use the suggested hash methods
Your argument is that people are going to be stupid so we should skip ahead and give them the result of their stupidity. Now obviously there will be people who do it the stupid way, but at least unique site locals allow the people who don't do it the stupid way certain benefits. I don't see how this can ever be a bad thing.In the end I think we need 1918 style space, and that it should simply be set aside as a large block and expected to never be useful in the context of other organizations, just like 1918 space is today.
Also, you can still use the original IPv6 site local space, as I don't see it being reused for something else any time soon. But if you do, you'll probably discover that there is a reason why the IETF decided to deprecate those.
So we should play telco and sell a service that is so cheap that the users are basically only paying for the billing? (= metered local calls)- It is not good engineering to give something away for free with no method of recovery, even if that resource is plentiful.
- Since this is a free method of globally unique space it has a highThat's nice. But it simply can't be done for any significant number of PI prefixes. That's why we're going through so much trouble to create a multihoming mechanism that doesn't kill the routing system.
Since this is a list of providers, I encourage you to read the drafts, and submit your comments to the working group. The information for the working group is at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html, and includes their mailing list archives and information on how to subscribe and/or post.
I suggest that everyone who is willing to spend the time, also looks into the "site local" debates that have plagued the IETF in recent years.Even if you disagree with me, much like voting the important thing is that you voice your opinion.