IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: For whom is IPv6? [was: Happy St Nicholas Day: Re-Launching the IPv6 ULA registry]

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Mon, 14 December 2020 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5DC3A1C16 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:32:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.004
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[GB_AFFORDABLE=1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o7c7I3apF1Af for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:32:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [149.20.64.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9150F3A1C1B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 12:32:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 588763AB0D0; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52C6716003D; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A0816007C; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Tmjzk5Q7IKu4; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:32:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.30.42.84] (n114-75-149-106.bla4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [114.75.149.106]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4AFC16003D; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:32:53 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: For whom is IPv6? [was: Happy St Nicholas Day: Re-Launching the IPv6 ULA registry]
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 07:32:49 +1100
Message-Id: <2DE03803-886B-4B03-938B-B863B6D5C407@isc.org>
References: <df85798d-d669-1dcb-aead-dfbefdb1e57d@gmail.com>
Cc: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, ipv6@ietf.org, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
In-Reply-To: <df85798d-d669-1dcb-aead-dfbefdb1e57d@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18B92)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/F2jcijYWl170XpGUx48U63lTnTU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:32:57 -0000

And the real advantage of ULA is that you have something to renumber into. If you are unlucky to have a collision both sides generate new ULA prefixes advertise them via RAs deprecating the old ones.

If you have been managing you network properly every host should re-register itself in the DNS. 

Hard coded addresses really shouldn’t be used. But any that have can be tracked dow by looking for traffic using the deprecated prefixes. 

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews

> On 15 Dec 2020, at 07:12, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 15-Dec-20 02:34, Nico Schottelius wrote:
>> 
>> Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> writes:
>>>> Unless they're willing to lease their own line (like we did
>>>> in the early days of the IPv4nternet), the only solution would be to
>>>> use an incumbent ISP, who certainly won't route ULAs without €€€.
>>> 
>>> .... or tunneling.
>> 
>> This is actually seen in quite a lot of community networks: you use "the
>> Internet" as a backbone to connect other sites. But you still stay
>> inside your ULA network for the services.
>> 
>> To name a few networks I am aware of that use ULA and have their own
>> registries:
>> 
>> - DN42 (https://dn42.eu/home)
>> - Freifunk (https://freifunk.net/)
>> - Anonet (http://anonet.org/)
>> 
>> If either of these networks would join the others, there would be ULA
>> collisions today.
> 
> Why? Have they been unusually unlucky in their use of random number
> generators?
> 
>     Brian
> 
>> 
>>> Or is the thing that they want GUAs that are free of the charges RIRs
>>> normally charge for them?
>> 
>> The requirement is mainly uniqueness. Services like whois and rDNS are
>> very welcome from an operational point of view as well. Internet routing
>> is not required - for this we can use GUA.
>> 
>> Nico
>> 
>> --
>> Modern, affordable, Swiss Virtual Machines. Visit www.datacenterlight.ch
>> .
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email