[ppml] Resurrecting ULA Central [was: Re: Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure - to be revised ]

[Thomas Narten]

Let me give a try.

Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> writes:

> could folk please explain how these various suggestions differ from
> 1918 on the dimensions which seem operationally annoying today?  e.g.
>   o leakage of packets with source of unreachable addresses

No real difference? But having such unreachable space be globally
unique at least allows one to identify the source (if a centrally
assigned ULA) and prevents confusion/collision with addresses used by
different organizations.

>   o dns entries with unreachables on the rhs

Not sure I understand. but with CULAs (centrally assigned), there is
clear owner of the address, and reverse entries can be placed in the
DNS. At the meeting, this was said to be useful for utilities like
traceroute, that convert the addresses to DNS names for display.

>   o traceroutes through infrastructure

Better to have globally unique addresses than ambiguous addresses? 

>   o dns dynupd for unreachables

Not sure what the question is here.

> we have a plenty of history that "should not" in an rfc does not
> help much.

> is there something we can do to not continue the pain while getting
> some benefit?

Indeed!

Thomas