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

Tue Apr 25 15:22:45 EDT 2006

Removing topology from the definition changes the current Internet hierarchy. Then
the immediate next step would be defining the architecture where topology does not
matter(?)

Peter

--- Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> However, in the long run, tying IP Address to Topology as a definition would
> further cement what I believe is an error in the protocol design.  The
> IP address should be strictly an End System Identifier. Overloading topology
> onto it is part of why we are worried about scaling limits in routing
> tables.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> --On April 25, 2006 10:56:49 AM -0700 Peter Sherbin <pesherb at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> ... the PI/PA debate is or should be pointless.
> > 
> > Perhaps a consesus definition of an IP address could help, e.g.:
> > An IP address is a unique topological identifier of the interface where
> > the number of bits in the address determines the version of IP.
> > 
> > This would remove the ownership topic because no one owns the whole or a
> > part of any particular version of the protocol.
> > 
> > Peter
> >  
> > 
> > --- bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 04:27:06PM -0400, Jason Schiller
> >> (schiller at uu.net) wrote:
> >> > Bill,
> >> > 
> >> > Are you saying the right place to solve the private addressing issue
> >> > is in the individual RIRs?
> >> 
> >> 	perhaps i was unclear.  the ULA proposal from the IETF
> >> 	create property rights in IP address space, a concept that
> >> 	to date, is antithical to the RIR premise that IP space
> >> 	is roughly analogous to frequencies... e.g. can I OWN
> >> 	the frequency band between 10.8GHz and 11.2Ghz and require
> >> 	anyone who uses it to pay me royalties on a global basis?
> >> 	
> >> 	the IETF proposal allows entities to claim ownership, via
> >> 	first come, first served, of IP space.  There is some precident
> >> 	at least in the US system of law, which argues against the
> >> 	ability to own numbers.  My fears may be unfounded in this
> >> 	regard.
> >> 
> >> 	but the ULA central proposal does create yet another registry,
> >> 	the "central" thing that is supposed to track who is holding what.
> >> 	And there is no plan to provide a viaable businsess model for such
> >> 	a "central" holder.  And there is no current way that "central"
> >> 	can or would coordinate with the other RIRs.
> >> 
> >> 	-MY- assertion is that there is or should be  no distinction
> >> 	on an address delegation... the PI/PA debate is or should be 
> >> 	pointless.  You get a delegation or not.  You can chose to make
> >> 	subsiquent delegations from your delegated space or not.  
> >> 	And it is reasonable to place conditions on a delegation such that
> >> 	it is recoverable... presuming the horse has not left the barn.
> >> 
> >> 	that said, ARIN policy is created through the the open policy
> >> 	process.  if you -WANT- to add more policies, go for it.  
> >> 	I'd prefer to revamp most of the policies and come up wiht 
> >> 	a few core things and not build up a big policy analysis group.
> >> 
> >> --bill
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 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
> >> > 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PPML mailing list
> >> PPML at arin.net
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML mailing list
> > PPML at arin.net
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 