RE: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen at unfix.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Dan Lanciani wrote:

> "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> 
> |Dan Lanciani wrote:
> |
> |> "Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> |> 
> |> |I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject:
> |> |
> |> |Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to
> |> |an existing organisation that they think will outlast them in age
> |> |and that already has a LIR allocation allocated. Give them some
> |> |money to make them happy and request a /48 from them.
> |<SNIP>
> |
> |> I'm sure that some ISP could see business in this.  What I 
> |> don't understand is why it is necessary or desirable to create a revenue 
> |> stream for ISPs in this way.  Could you explain how it is beneficial to the v6 
> |> user community add an artificial address rental cost to internal 
> |> networking operations?
> |
> |I never said that it would be benificial to the user community,
> 
> Then why do it?

Because it is "yet another option" and also one that is available now
and doesn't need anything from the IETF, IANA or anybody else?

> |But it is one solution that can be taken *now* by the (many?) companies
> |that require this scenario.
> 
> You appear to be suggesting it as an alternative to the 
> proposed permanent allocations which this thread is about.  In that context it 
> has been proposed before.  I do not believe that it is a good reason to delay 
> (or worse, reject) the current proposal for permanent allocations.

I never said (or wrote for that matter) that I was against this proposal either ;)
To clarify I commented on a reply which mentioned the money issue...

> |The 'pay some money' in the scenario above could also be replaced
> |by 'rub his back' or 'donate a keg of beer' which makes many ISP's
> |happy already. One could also request a /48 from one of the many
> |Tunnel Broker systems out there and just don't use it globally ;)
> 
> Why have this uncertainty in cost (and even in availability) 
> when we can have simple, permanent allocations as proposed?

Alternate proposal, nothing against the unique-local proposal, some
others raised cost concerns, thus I mentioned this alternative to them.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int.
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen

iQA/AwUBQD1g1SmqKFIzPnwjEQJHIACfeZZL0ojwOvf8wde7GJVU5HlEkAcAn0PO
UkEOOCeLj6DPkBufWH37Jvh4
=p3hn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------