Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02.txt

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <CAKD1Yr2fyZ9FezX5dh=[e-mail]>, Lorenzo Colitti writes:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > 1. More than one party not following the spec on how to generate
> > a ULA prefix - so they will be punished for their own mistakes.
> >
> 
> How are they punished? And what will they do when they are punished? I
> guarantee that renumbering will not be the solution, NAT will be the
> solution.

Both sites just generate a NEW ULA prefixes.  They can continue to
use the collision prefix until the heat death of the universe if
they wish to or they can migrate to the new prefix.  IPv6 is NOT
IPv4.  Running parallel prefixes is *standard* proceedure.  They
just need to talk to each other using the NEW prefixes which should
be no more complicated than pushing new address selection tables.

If they really want to they can choose to use the same new prefix
and create a site that covers both of the old sites splitting the
address space.  If they do that they don't even need to push new
address selection tables.

> 2. A piece of remarkably bad luck, rather less likely than
> > winning any lottery I'm aware of.
> >
> 
> You assume that people will actually follow the rules instead of saying
> "let's just do this like IPv4, and use NAT at the border".
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]