Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CD31A07A7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:17:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.552
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.552 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ul1Mc29eOpty for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9334E1A0797 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 15:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B253349473; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:17:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973F7160064; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:22:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 682B716005B; Tue, 27 May 2014 22:22:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from rock.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rock.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A980B16B8C6E; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:17:08 +1000 (EST)
To: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-3a@u-1.phicoh.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m261ks7xww.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840070.90801@gmail.com> <m2y4xn7wep.wl%randy@psg.com> <53840723.8010606@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1O_poMR200sjU=ttRvGaeQRkC1ZfXC0Ok4uQxdq3K=NQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2mwe37tbn.wl%randy@psg.com> <CAKD1Yr2t3-vxuG=iDi4biBNFpJwuzuHgfpB74i_uydWWRV7qZg@mail.gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6E02@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <m2fvjv7q4h.wl%randy@psg.com> <m1WpDcc-0000BMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <43BB867C-7BCA-45F6-8ADC-A49B34D6C0DC@nominum.com> <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 May 2014 15:56:36 +0200." <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:17:08 +1000
Message-Id: <20140527221708.A980B16B8C6E@rock.dv.isc.org>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/4vtiLFmiTYqDf2DWzaKaCb77I6k
Cc: v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] ULA draft revision #2 Regarding isolated networks
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 22:17:18 -0000

In message <m1WpHrp-0000BQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>, Philip Homburg writes:
> In your letter dated Tue, 27 May 2014 08:52:02 -0400 you wrote:
> >The operational situation that's problematic is the large enterprise 
> >scenario, where you have two large enterprises with their own ULAs that 
> >merge.   If those ULAs happen to clash, you have to renumber at least 
> >one of them.   If they don't clash, you still have to deal with routing 
> >them (although I think the split-horizon complexity objection Mikael 
> >raised ought to be thought through carefully before being asserted as 
> >factual, because I think it can be addressed through routing and not 
> >naming).
> 
> If you are a large entrprise, just spend the 50 euro or so (RIPE service region) it
> costs to get your own prefix.
 
A /56 is over AUD1180 (+10% GST) annually.  Thanks for playing.

> I assume that any large enterprise is very likely to be multi-homed anyhow. Even
> becoming an LIR should not even be noticable in the budget.
> 
> No real reason for a large enterprise to use ULA.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org