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

[Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)]

Bill,

Are you saying the right place to solve the private addressing issue is in
the individual RIRs?

I just want to be clear on this point so I can determine the best place to
focus my efforts.

I thought what I heard at the last ARIN meeting was that the ARIN policy
on should not supercede and RFC on unique local addressing.

This is troubling as it is my understing of the history of
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt is that in got 7/8s finished and then 
it died at the ARIN stage, but one of the things holding up the ARIN
policy 2006-2 was that it really should be pursued in the IETF first.

Many people who previuosly worked on draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt
are not intrested in reviving the draft if it is just going to die at ateh
ARIN stage.  I would hate to invest time on the ARIN policy if people are
not likely to accept it without an RFC.

So the question I have for you and everyone is where is the best place to
pursue this?

___Jason
==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

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