[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Fri Mar 26 17:33:01 EDT 2010

William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> A ula.nro.net type mechanism is the way to coordinate the creation of the
>> random prefixes.  How about something like this.
> David,
> Something is escaping me here. For *registered* ULA's what's the point
> of randomization? Wouldn't we better served with sparse? Or perhaps
> split the space and do half sparse and the other half linear when the
> requested net count is too large for the largest free space in the
> sparse area?

I'm not sure it is entirely necessary.  But, there is an elegance to 
both kinds of ULA using an identical prefix selection algorithm. The 
only difference is if the Local/Central is being set or not. Which I 
believe was the original intent of how ULA was designed. This would also 
underscore the differences between ULA-C and PI addressing.

Some people have said that ULA-C needed to have a random prefix 
selection algorithm too, I don't really care either way.  But, if we 
allocate large blocks to the RIRs, why not let the RIRs manage the whole 
assignment process and just use their normal processes.  I don't see any 
benefit to allocating large blocks and then requiring the RIRs to use a 
random prefix selection algorithm within those blocks.  If your going to 
have a different prefix selection algorithm, between ULA-C and ULA-L, 
why make a third one, just use the RIRs normal one.

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list