On Apr 26, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 24 Apr 2010 21:01, Mark Smith wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 01:48:18 -0400 >> Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith >>> <na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> wrote: >>> >>>> So what happens when you change providers? How are you going to keep using >>>> globals that now aren't yours? >>>> >>> use pi space, request it from your local friendly RIR. >>> >> I was hoping that wasn't going to be your answer. So do you expect every >> residential customer to get a PI from an RIR? >> > > The vast majority of residential customers have no idea what "globals" > or "PI" are. They use PA and they're fine with that--despite being > forcibly renumbered every few hours/days. (Many ISPs deliberately tune > their DHCP servers to give residential customers a different address > each time for "market segmentation" reasons.) > The majority of residential cusotmers bitch about paying $20/month for what they have and are not planning to multihome.
This was a comment about multihoming. FWIW, this residential user has PI from an RIR (v4 and v6) and is multihomed using it. It works fine. > > The only semi-rational justification for ULA-C is that organizations > privately internetworking with other organizations are scared of ULA-R > collisions. However, PI solves that problem just as readily. If one > cannot afford or qualify for PI, or one wants a non-PI prefix due to > delusions of better security, one can use a private deconfliction > registry, e.g. <http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/>. > The claim being made which I was attempting to refute had nothing to do with residential. IT was that ULA-C with NAT at the border would allow an organization to semi-transparently switch back and forth between providers. This is a (somewhat) common practice in IPv4 for delivering (degraded) multihoming. Owen
