cengel at sponsordirect.com
Wed Apr 7 12:23:57 EDT 2010
David Farmer wrote:
> I believe, the stewardship the RIRs provide is necessary, and
> the RIRs'
> policy processes can properly manage the risk. As for cost,
> while not a
> policy matter, in the shorter-term ULA-C is not going to be as cost
> effective as some would hope. However, if in the longer-term
> the risks
> can be managed, then I have to believe that the RIRs will do
> the right
Speaking only for myself, I don't think the fee's I've heard thrown around (I think it was something like $1200 per year?) would present much of a stumbling block for most of those on the Enterprise who's addressing needs would actually justify ULA-C. Realistically, that's less then the coffee budget. No significant Enterprise should even blink at that. As long as there is no fee or justification for ULA-R (which I'm assuming because there is no registration) then everything should be fine. If you can't justify $1200 per year, then the burden imposed by using something which is not guarantied unique but still statistically alot bigger then RFC1918 is not that significant. Frankly I would think that most smaller Enterprises/startups will probably opt for ULA-R anyway. That would be our plan right now (assuming we can find NAT support in IPv6).
However, I can see the value in ULA-C for some Enterprises...and you'll definitely get some buy in there..even with significant fee's. I wouldn't have any problem fee/justification wise if ULA-C was treated identically to PI. The only caveat should be that justification for ULA-C shouldn't count against justification for PA/PI... you should be able to get both types of addresses for the same device. The real value of ULA-C (IMO) is the understanding that it's not supposed to be globally routed. Yes, that's enforced by convention only...but that's no different then pretty much anything else on the internet.
More information about the ARIN-PPML