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

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:36:37PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
> 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).

	please define "globally routable".
	unless hardwired to reject an address, virtually
	all addresses are potentially "globally" routable.
	if there is a potentialy for non-unique assignment,
	then the possibility of routing said prefix will lead 
	to ambiguity...  so fundamentally, most folks seem to
	want verifiable, unique, persistant address assignments.

	routablity is a function of the ISP, not the address 
	registry...  correct?


> 
> 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...

	the reasons, imho, that ARIN gave this the thumbs down was A) that
	it creates property rights,  and B) has the IETF creating an other address
	registry out of whole cloth - not following the defined RIR creation
	process.  For me, the first is fundamentally fatal.

> 
>    Note: AFAIK, no such reaction seemed to come out of APNIC or RIPE.
> 
> 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