[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)

Tony Hain wrote:
> Randomness could be a natural outcome if the default configuration for SOHO
> routers was to create one and bury the ability to specify it under some
> 'Advanced/Experts-only' option. 
> 
> There is a 'need' for this space to satisfy Enterprise network managers that
> have external partnerships and are unwilling to deal with collisions no
> matter how unlikely. While these organizations could use their PI space for
> this, they don't want to because that ends up impacting their internal
> routing due to the number of deaggregates that get announced. 

Can you elaborate that last sentence? Do you mean that these people do
not know that there is an 'aggregate' knob on their routers and that
they will be deaggregating this prefix when announcing to the Internet?

As I mentioned, we can't engineer around stupid people. The default of
those routers should be to aggregate to resolve this 'problem'.

What is the difference between having:
 2001:db8::/48 + fc00:db8:5678:1::/64 + fc00:db8:5678:2::/64
and:
 2001:db8::/48 + 2001:db8:5678:1::/64 + 2001:db8:5678:2::/64

For both prefixes (excuse the ULA central bit) one would have to go to
the registry to get it, and as one gets PI, one is already going there,
why go there twice and claim 2x /48, which most likely is waaaaaay too
much anyway.

Did I misunderstand something in your statement?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070508/d61e324c/attachment.sig>