[ppml] Resurrecting ULA Central [was: Re: Policy Proposal 2006-2:Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure - to be revised ]

[Scott Leibrand]

On 04/21/06 at 10:52am -0400, Greg Stilwell <greg.stilwell at verizonbusiness....:

> I think the draft will need some revision to make it more palatable, but
> will reserve my comments for IETF mailing list.

Which IETF WG is in charge of draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central?  There isn't
still an ipv6 WG, is there?

-Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Narten
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:37 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?
>
> Pros:
>
> 1) globally-unique space would be available to everyone, including end
>    sites. I.e., for pretty much any purpose. Even during the ARIN
>    meeting, it was pointed out that anyone with an ASN could/would
>    presumably want something like this.
>
> Cons:
>
> 1) ARIN pretty vocally shot down the document a year or more ago, and
>    the IETF basically decided "we don't need this so badly as to have
>    a showdown with the ARIN community". Having said that, I (and
>    others) still think the idea has some merit and would be willing to
>    push on it on the IETF end, assuming we wouldn't get a repeat
>    reaction at future meetings for our efforts...
>
>    Note: AFAIK, no such reaction seemed to come out of APNIC or RIPE.
>
> 2) Does solve Jason's problem, but perhaps there is no desire to fight
>    the larger battle at the expense of just solving the narrow/simple
>    problem (i.e., just for ISPs). Note, however, that it will
>    presumably take at least another 6 months (until the St. Louis
>    meeting) to make progress on this. (Realistically, it would
>    probably also take 6 months to get the ula-central document through
>    the IETF, assuming there was no significant opposition from ARIN,
>    so I'm not sure either approach is necessarily longer).
>
> 3) Would make such address space available to everyone, including all
>    end sites, not just ISPs. Not sure this is necessarily bad, but it
>    will result in orders of magnitude more such addresses in use. And
>    the concerns raised in the past centered around the fear that ISPs
>    would be  asked/forced to route them...
>
> I know that there is at least one person willing to resurrect the
> ula-central document, but I (personally) don't want to invest cycles in it
> if it's going to get a frosty reception in ARIN again. Been there, done
> that.
>
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>