[address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

On tir, mai 29, 2007 04:42, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Thus spake "Roger Jørgensen" <roger at jorgensen.no>
<snip>
> Anyone who is large enough to care about the extreme unlikelihood of
> collisions with ULA-L will be able to get PI, at least in ARIN's region.
> The bar is incredibly low; just about the only folks who don't qualify are
> people running home networks.  And, for that matter, people can get a
> single
> PI block larger than /48, whereas someone who needs more than a /48 in
> ULA-C
> space would need multiple distinct blocks, presumably multiplying the fees
> to more than what PI costs.

without going into details, PA/PI space is really a waste to be used in a
closed network that should never ever be directly connected to the public
Internet. You can say we are building our own very closed version of
Internet and other will be connected to us sooner or later. We need to
know we have unique address space no mather how many other organization we
connect with.


> If your argument is that ULA-C will be cheaper, that is perhaps an
> argument
> that PI fees are too high -- not that anyone has stated if or how much
> cheaper ULA-C would be if it did pass.  I have a hard time seeing anyone
> who
> has a legitimate need for ULA-C _or_ PI space whining about $100/yr.  If
> they can't afford that, they can't afford anyone knowledgeable enough to
> care about the problems with ULA-L (or PA) space.

money isn´t on the table at all. It´s easier to get managment and other to
understand that the addresses are unique with ULA-C than to explain how
low the chances are to get a collission with ULA-L. It´s that easy.

PI or PA or whatever you called it given out of the public routable
address pool and to be used on a closed network is simply a waste. It´s
that simple.



-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------