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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I think David has it right. The confusing aspect of Nico's argument, to
    > me, is that ULAs can never be of any use for wider connectivity outside
    > the organisation that "owns" the ULA prefix, *by the very definition of
    > ULAs*.  It doesn't matter in the slightest if "Hamburg" and "Berlin"
    > use (by pure chance) the same ULA prefix, because there is no
    > connection between both of them via various ISPs, and then *by

That's not correct.  That's very much capital-Internet bias.
It's IPv4 scarcity think.  IP is for all sorts of uses that might not involve the *I*nternet.

There may be no connection via the *DFZ*.
You might never be able to reach these networks from NZ.

That doesn't mean there is no connection.
It could be a hundred 100m 802.15.4 radios running on solar power.

    > What costs money with a routeable prefix is not the prefix, it's the
    > routeability and the connectivity.
    > If that's a problem, it can only be
    > solved by some such RIR policy approach as David describes. Has RIPE
    > never considered this?

Routeability has never been promises by RIRs.
Connectivity is and has always been by 1:1 contract.

What the RIRs promise are:
  1) uniqueness.
  2) whois and reverse DNS
  3) RPSL and RPKI [added this decade]


--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [