[ppml] Resurrecting ULA Central [was: Re: Policy Proposal 200 6-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure - to be revised ]

[brian.knight at us.mizuho-sc.com]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Thomas Narten
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:37 PM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml] Resurrecting ULA Central [was: Re: Policy Proposal
> 2006-2: Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure - to be 
> revised ]
> 
> 
> On 4/14/06, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> 
> > fwiw, after discussion with jason, i would support a more 
> simple, direct,
> > and clear proposal to the same end.
> >
> > randy
> 
> Question:
> 
> I gather that resurrecting
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html?draft=draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central
> 
> would also solve the technical problem at hand (since the technical
> requirement seems to be globally-unique address space, with no
> need/desire to have it be globally routable).
> 
> I understand that RFC 4193 style addresses are not "unique enough" for
> that purpose.
> 
> Would there be interest in resurrecting the ula-central document?

(Gah.  Serves me right for not looking back at the list while finishing my
mail.)

I know this was brought up to solve a different problem, but... ula-central
would be a very good thing for us.  It directly addresses the problem I laid
out in my email.

RFC 4193 provides a very, very high probability of a unique identifier.  I'm
thinking, though, that we and our partners would benefit greatly from the
assurance that our identifier is absolutely unique.  I feel there would be a
strong comfort factor in being able to WHOIS a private range and verify
ownership.  I could easily see financial exchanges requiring that for
membership.

Moreover, I especially like the ability to leverage global DNS to resolve
unique local addresses.  It solves the problem of multiple split-horizon
schemes.  Under RFC 4193, I would need to set up a split-horizon DNS scheme.
Under ula-central I could probably get away with a single global scheme.

The requirements to obtain an allocation are perfectly reasonable.  I also
like that it maintains RFC 4193-style addressing for the operators which may
not need centrally-administered addressing.

About the only concern I envision would be that enterprises may attempt to
apply a single allocation throughout the enterprise.  With the M&A game so
widely played, that single-allocation model would break down as
organizations are grafted and pruned.  And, of course, there's simply no
need to have a single range.  I think it should be part of best practices to
have the responsible IT folks from each location obtain (or generate) their
own allocations, rather than use a larger allocation provided by the head
office or somesuch.

-Brian Knight
Sr. Network Engineer
Mizuho Securities USA
http://www.mizuho-sc.com/

* Please note that I do not speak for my employer - only for myself.