Re: ULA Registration

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 24/03/2017 à 16:24, David Farmer a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Pim van Pelt <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hoi Alex,
>
>     On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     wrote:
>     > Congratulations for past achievements!
>     Thank you.
>
>     > Tunnelbroker ok, but how about ULA generation and registration at
>     sixxs.  Is
>     > it shut down tombstone too?
>     > https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
>     <https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/>
>     TL/DR: Plan of record is that it will cease to exist.
>
>     This registry was for educational purposes, and has no official
>     status. Importantly, as ULA is random per definition, the chance of
>     collisions is extremely low. It is fairly straight forward to get a
>     prefix from one of the RIRs. While that does cost some money, it is an
>     activity that is not the main charter of SixXS and will be expected to
>     continue with the RIRs.
>
>
> There are other purposes for registration than just uniqueness, with ULA
> such as identification of leaked traffic for instance, but more
> generally registration facilitates many forms of operational
> coordination.  We have the RIRs use registries because we want more than
> just a guarantee of uniqueness, we also want to facilitate operational
> coordination on many fronts.
>
> Further, ULA prefixes provide something that RIR allocated GUA prefixes
> don't, that is a presumption that they are not routed(or reachable)
> between administrative domains.  While they can be routed between
> administrative domains, this is really only suppose to happen with
> one-on-one coordination. Were as RIR allocated GUA prefixes are presumed
> to be routed between all administrative domains.  Their is no guarantee
> they are actually routed between any two administrative domains, but it
> is presumed to be the case.  And, ULA is presumed to be the exact
> opposite that.
>
> While ULAs are presumed to not be routed between administrative domains,
> that doesn't mean they are not use cases where registration can provide
> advantages, especially when ULAs are used for enterprise use cases.
> There are probably much less advantages of ULA registration when all you
> are looking for is a semi-stable prefix that isn't dependent on a
> service provider, like in typical residential use case, but these are
> not the only use cases for ULA.
>
>     > And what happens to the registrations?
>     Can't quite parse the question - so let me offer three answers (maybe
>     the answer you're looking for is among them):
>
>
> I think he means the ULA registrations.  As I mention above, there are
> other advantages to registration than just uniqueness.

Other advantages yes, and inconvenients too, depending on how it's 
implemented.  It should be trustable.

> From this discussion on another list, here is the count of ULA
> registrations in the SixXS database.
> +------+-------+
> | Year | Count |
> +------+-------+
> | 2007 |    63 |
> | 2008 |   140 |
> | 2009 |   321 |
> | 2010 |   611 |
> | 2011 |   835 |
> | 2012 |   742 |
> | 2013 |   724 |
> | 2014 |  1096 |
> | 2015 |  1303 |
> | 2016 |   640 |
> | 2017 |   143 |
> +------+-------+
>
> That is 6618 ULA block that were registered, that seems like that's more
> than just a fad. Does this make a case for resurrecting the discussions
> of ULA-C? I think it does.  But, what do others think?

The numbers look impressive, with a glory period yet now declining. Or
just momentarily declining to only grow bigger in the longer term.

On my side, I hesitated before registering my small ULA prefixes on sixxs.

Now I could still live with randomly-generated ULA prefixes, or
generated from other significant identifiers, controlled by other
authorities relevant in particular use-cases.

But, if in the future very many computers hit this unique-/64 limit,
then ULA-C w/ or w/o NAT66 could become real necessities.

Alex

>
> Thanks.
>
>     Happy to discuss this or other things further as we near the
>     lights-out date.
>
>     groet,
>     Pim
>
>     --
>     Pim van Pelt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>     PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone] <tel:(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================