Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02.txt

On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:56, Paul Vixie wrote:
> [I wrote:]
>>
>> The purpose of ULA-C/G, as near as I can tell, is to mitigate the   
>> risk of
>> an already vanishingly low probability collision--  ...
>
> nope.

Hmmm.  I guess the alternative is that the purpose of ULA-C/G is to  
mitigate the risk of collision when merging on the order of hundreds  
of thousands of ULA networks in one routing realm... sort of like  
creating a "local DFZ" of a sort.

Forgive me, but that sounds even more surreal.  It's tough for me to  
imagine how a real organization doing that could fail to qualify for  
a PI allocation, or why such an organization would find it  
unacceptable to have to use a PI allocation without advertising it to  
the public DFZ.  Likewise, it's tough to imagine how an organization  
that doesn't qualify for a PI allocation could be merging enough ULA  
networks together that the risk of collision rises to a level of any  
real significance.

Okay.  Maybe the problem with PI allocations for this purpose is that  
organizations doing all this network merging, i.e. extraordinarily  
paranoid organizations, e.g. the Communist Party, want some kind of  
assurance from the operators of the public Internet that their  
hundreds of thousands of local networks aren't directly reachable  
from the public DFZ in the event a local NOC configures a border  
router improperly.  Obviously, ULA-C can do that better than PI.

Is that the big driving factor here?

--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------