[ppml] Comments from Open Forum

[Michael Whisenant]

I am confused as to the intention of the remarks that created a stir of 
controversial comments. Let me start with what I heard as the comments, the 
follow on comments, and my comments which may or may not be so relevant 
based on correct understanding of the original comments.

1. I heard a request from the community as to their opinion regarding an 
organization that wants globally unique IPv6 address space, but yet this 
will be routed on a closed network (not necessarily globally routed).

	I do not see that this is any different that what has already being used 
today in that organizations which justify the need for an allocation can 
obtain one, and that they have meet the conditions of the allocation. If 
the person which has this address assignment chooses NOT to have the 
address space or a portion thereof announced that is an operational issue 
and not part of the policy. I do not see any specific policy that states 
that IP address space that is obtained from a RIR must the globally routed, 
and do not see the full intent of this request. Why is this an issue, and 
why would they not just get that address space.

2. A comment was made that private RFC1918 address space could not be 
routed across a providers network in a closed manner.

	This is not the case, as I pointed out L2VPN and separate vrf in BGP 
supports such. Granted that as was pointed out there is a problem if you 
desire to route RFC1918 to other organizations (ie double NAT which breaks 
everything) but I did not hear that the organization wanted to communicate 
between multiple organizations across the private closed network. I 
received lots of immediate negative comments that it had to be routed 
across separate organizations. Yes each separate VPN must have unique 
address space, coordinate use of RFC1918 address space for separate L2VPN. 
It is not technically impossible, but in practice is operationally hard to 
imagine that would be the case, resulting again in the need for globally 
unique address allocation.

So with that stated, and the corrections for item #2 in a short forum, what 
is the issue that was requested from the public when I do not see why they 
can not obtain the address space. The reason for the clarification, was 
that the AC was then tasked to explore how this could be accomplished. I 
support that if this is an issue that the AC should and I trust that they 
will address this specific issue. I am trying to better understand the 
issue , therefore spurring on further discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 170 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20031023/f943c560/attachment.sig>