[ppml] Proposed Policy: PI assignments for V6 (and v6 fees)

Paul Vixie paul at vix.com
Mon Dec 6 14:45:05 EST 2004

(this is my first ppml post, ever.)

> Categorizing semi-connected networks separately makes sense because their
> addressing needs do not include global routability; policies (or standards
> work) relating to that category may be different than for fully-connected
> networks.

i don't think it'll work like you're saying.  let's say ULA goes into
general use and that a number of enterprises who are all customers of a
set of ISP's decide that rather than tunnelling, they'd like their
shared set of ISP's to "just route the ULA prefixes please."  by
enterprise i'm talking Ford and GM and Daimler and their rust-belt supply
network, or perhaps Wal-Mart and its offshore vendor network.  we know
what the ISP's will say: "yes, ma'am, and would you like fries with that?"

now let's assume that someone wants to enter one of these enterprise
frays and their ISP is not "part of the collective".  the ISP in
question will not want to allow sheer force to be applied to this
customer, so they'll join the collective either by direct peering or by

lather, rinse, repeat.

human action (per von mises and others) automatically turns ULA into PI
over time, with increasing horizons and therefore decreasing margins
between what it means to be "unique" and what it means to be "global".
you cannot legislate human nature, but you can make it take perverse
turns to get where it's going, and make it take longer to get there, if
you want.  i don't want us to do that or even try to do that.  instead,
let's just recognize that a far larger segment of the enterprise community
needs PI than was previously believed, and transform all ULA arguments to
date into "PI reform" arguments, and then restore "site local" addressing,
which was valuable precisely because it was dangerous and self-limiting.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list