[IPv6]Re: Analysis of Ungleich ULA Registry

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:03 PM Kyle Rose <krose=[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 9:54 PM David Farmer <farmer=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Nevertheless, if the data is to be believed, people are, in fact, using
>> multiple /48s. I'm simply saying that is a fact, and it counters the
>> argument that "no one needs more than a /48," at least in my opinion.
>>
>> You and others are completely entitled to your counter-opinion.
>>
>
> I'm not disputing that some might need more than a single /48. I'm
> disputing the conclusion that ULA-C and central registration is required to
> solve this problem, which feels like a complete non-sequitur. Just tell
> them to generate a shorter prefix meeting their needs, alongside a warning
> about what the future consequences might be.
>

I would agree with you if we weren't on the verge of making it rather
difficult to use more than 10 ULA prefixes by implementing the known-local
ULA list in draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update. I realize you would rather we
don't make that change. But that is not where we seem to be headed.

Prefixes shorter than /48 are one way around the practical limit on the
number of ULA prefixes that will be created by the known-local ULA list.
However, at least one implementation thinks enforcing prefixes /48 or
longer in fd00::/8 is critical. So, that leaves ULA-C in fc00:/8, which
seems to be the only option for prefixes shorter than /48.

I don't care how we get to ULA prefixes shorter than /48. But, you are
saying no to one way, and others are saying no to the other way. Something
has to give somewhere, or we are headed for a train wreck.

Thanks.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================