[ppml] draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt use cases

[Leo Bicknell]

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
bit boundaries).

No DFZ provider is going to tolerate collisions and the troubleshooting
it brings.

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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070628/72472a98/attachment.sig>