North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against something that really doesn't impact them.
Do customers demand that their ISPs route RFC1918 addresses now? (And that's an honest question. I am not being sarcastic.) Wouldn't the IPv6 ULA answer be the same as the IPv4 RFC1918 answer, "I could announce those networks for you, but no one else would accept the routes. (And I would be ridiculed straight off of NANOG.)" I presume everyone will be filtering the ULA prefix(es), link local, loopback, and other obvious bogons from their tables. How does this enterprise demand that other providers route the ULA prefixes too? If we're talking about routing ULAs within a providers network, I'd think providers would love them. Right now, an enterprise can buy a "corporate VPN" or layer two network to route "private" addresses. Wouldn't providers be happy to offer the same service, for the same extra $$$, in IPv6? Especially when you consider that you can just drop the routes for the ULAs in your interior routing tables since ULAs are well, unique, and you're done. No tunnelling or other levels of indirection required. Charge the same or more for the "business-level service" that you offer now, but there is less work for you to do it. -- Crist J. Clark email@example.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387