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

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Brian E Carpenter wrote on 10/12/2020 19:04:
> 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?

provider independent addressing has been discussed to death at RIPE over 
the years, but most of the discussion has centered around publicly 
routeable address blocks: ULA has come up from time to time, but no-one 
ever really felt there was a need for a separate registry for it.

Unique addressing is only of interest in situations where you're 
interconnecting networks together.

What makes registered addresses relevant is the combination of 
interconnection + address permanence.  If you have no need for 
interconnection, then you can use private addressing or ULAs.  If you 
don't need permanence, then you can use your service provider's 
addresses.  It's only if you need both that public registration becomes 
an issue.

If you want registered addresses, they're cheap and readily available: a 
LIR is charged €50/y per block, where there's a demonstrated need for 
the holder to multihome (the LIR will usually mark this charge up).  So 
if there's already an option to register GUAs, what added advantage is 
there to maintain a ULA registry?  It would be less functional for no 
less cost or effort.

Nick