[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[Chris Engel]

Bill Herrin wrote:

> Needs? Justify? $1200? For ULA? Buddy, I don't think you
> quite get what ULA is or what it's for.
>
> All three of those are huge stumbling blocks to a ULA-C, and
> I do work for a large enterprise which would have a use for
> registered ULA. ULA is for everything from the coordinated
> enterprise WAN to the independent 20-phone LAN installed by a
> particular office's vendor and the VPNed "inside lan" for
> customer 4468's 3 servers. Like random ULA, it's gotta be
> damn near grab and go... and $1200 is a non-starter.
>
> -Bill

If I'm not mistaken the prime difference between ULA-C versus ULA-R is that of guarantied uniqueness as opposed to statistically probable uniqueness, correct? The discussion of fee's and justification and all that jazz is, I believe, contained to ULA-C. I don't believe anyone is proposing anything like that for ULA-R....wouldn't be enforceable even if they did, since there is no registration necessary for ULA-R.

I agree that $1200 and justification for private address space for 3 servers is a pretty bad deal. However, the difference between using ULA-C and ULA-R for that use case is that with ULA-R, IF you go through a merger or something of that nature there is a somewhat less then 1 percent chance that you will have to renumber - 3 SERVERS. That doesn't strike me as a particularly daunting burden to risk.

Where ULA-C really makes a difference over ULA-R (IMO) is for the folks who need address space for thousands of devices. For those guys even though the chance of running into a conflict with ULA-R is small, if it does hit...it's a huge burden. However, for those guys a $1200 fee isn't even worth blinking over. For everyone else, there is ULA-R.

I've got no pony in this race. I'm neither the big multi-national Enterprise or the guy with 3 servers in his closet. IF/WHEN we support IPv6 (still an open question) our plans would be to use ULA-R regardless, even if ULA-C was free. The big objection to ULA-C that seems to be getting raised by people here.... as David pointed out.... was that ULA-C could be abused as an end-run around PI/PA policy/fees. If you make the policy/fees for ULA-C identical to those, you remove any incentive for that and still retain what makes ULA-C valuable. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.... and really the guys who most need ULA-C (as opposed to ULA-R) should easily be able to afford that kind of money. Just my 2 cents.





Christopher Engel