[ppml] draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt use cases
bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Jun 28 16:43:55 EDT 2007
In a message written on Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 03:32:19PM -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Then why aren't we routing 10/8 yet? And what about ULA-L? Does that
> need to be abolished as well? If private space is indistinguishable (by
> routers) from public space, then such space will indeed end up being
> routed. But if I can simply add "deny FC00::/7" to my bogon filter,
> then I need never see such routes.
There's a funamental difference between 10/8 (and, to a degree
ULA-L) and ULA-C.
If we both inject 10/8 into the DFZ today, we will have a collision.
If we both inject a ULA-L prefix into the DFZ, there's a reasonable
chance we will have a collision (statistics aside, most people are
going to ignore the random number thing and start at predictable
No DFZ provider is going to tolerate collisions and the troubleshooting
However, ULA-C's entire purpose is to guarantee uniqueness. DFZ
providers will not have to fear a collision at all, only that the route
may be filtered somewhere down your line. A large number of businesses
have been built on "pay your money and take your chances", and I think
many people will route ULA-C's under that mantra.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML