Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.com>
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 525ED1B3844 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:04:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 SvFwHQN4v7RH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:04:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A431B3843 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delong-dhcp229.delong.com (delong-dhcp29 [192.159.10.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tACM2Qo1020736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:02:26 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <20151112.225949.74718464.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:02:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A319983C-D48C-4C0A-AFE1-D075DA5DDE69@delong.com>
References: <6ED54502-C5D1-4D09-877C-FE283E3EF142@delong.com> <CAO42Z2y9AnpJC8mWtOaTwg+V4gsskAgbtHrEWmBwHQuvbJ1DSw@mail.gmail.com> <0FF35D7A-5315-4DBF-BC1B-A41EDA007A71@delong.com> <20151112.225949.74718464.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/H5RlXNMAJbEGvIX_w8hTwCeGTuI>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 22:04:29 -0000

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 13:59 , sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> 
>>> If you're building a small network that either currently isn't and may
>>> never be attached to the Internet, you have 3 choices:
>>> 
>>> (a) apply for RIR membership and incur annual RIR costs to get a PI
>>> /48 and after some time delay, be able to build your IPv6 network
>>> 
>>> (b) use $free ULA space, and be able to build your IPv6 network right now
>>> 
>>> (c) use $free RFC1918 IPv4 space, and build an IPv4 network right now
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Option (a) has financial costs and time delays that option (b)
>>> doesn't, and if option (b) doesn't exist, then option (c) is the most
>>> convenient and timely choice, unless it is essential that IPv6 is
>>> used. Option (c) being the most convenient, cost effective and timely
>>> option for if (b) isn't available will actually discourage support for
>>> IPv6.
>> 
>> (d) use whatever string of {32,48,64} bits you want and pretend it�$,1rys
>> an IPv6 prefix.
>> 
>> Please explain what benefit (b) offers over (d) in such a case. You�$,1ryre going
>> to end up renumbering when you attach to the internet either way.
> 
> Option b lets you use NPT66 to attach to the Internet without
> renumbering.
> 
> Option d may or may not let you use NPT66 to attach to the Internet
> without renumbering - depending on whether the IPv6 address you just
> grabbed out of thin air already is in use.

It’s relatively easy to safely grab addresses that will not be in use for the
foreseeable future using (d).

> So for those willing to consider NPT66, option b has an advantage.

And for those, shame on them for the tendency this has to create uncontrolled costs for other users of the internet.

This is a form of the toxic polluter business model.

Owen