[ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation

[Jason Schiller]

Michael,

I have two questions for you:

1. Are you in favor or opposed to this policy?

2. You mention that you can guarantee that there will be zero impact on
the public Internet routing table.  

The original policy had some text saying that this micro-allocation MUST
not be routed.  But there were objections about ARIN not setting routing
policy.  So this text was completely dropped from the current policy
proposal.

We considered softening this statemet to something like:
This micro-allocation should not be routed.  Or It is intended that this
allocation should not be routed.  

One post on ppml last spring suggested that the language should be
strengthened to be some thing like:

This micro-allocation MUST not be routed.  If an organization is found to
be routing their micro-allocation for internal infrastructure they must
either correct this mistake or surrender thier micro-allocation for
internal infrastructure.


Do you think 2006-2 is better with or without text on if the
micro-allocation for internal infrastructure should not be routed in
the global Internet?  If you think text should be added to 2006-2 about
routing this space, do you prefer weaker or stronger text?

Comments for others are also welcomed.

Thanks,

__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 Wed, 23 Aug 2006 Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:

> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:53:12 +0100
> From: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] question on 2006-2 v6 internal microallocation
> 
> > RFC 4193 ULAs do not insure global uniqueness, nor do they offer an
> > outside authority that documents if a given organization has a 
> legitimate
> > claim to use a specific address in the event of a collision.
> > 
> > We need a mechanism to guarantee global uniqueness between us and our
> > managed customer networks.
> 
> We are in the same position. In addition, we operate a global
> internetwork that is disjoint from the public Internet. Nevertheless,
> it is an internetwork connecting over 10,000 sites from well over
> a thousand different organizations. There the requirement for 
> globally unique registered addresses is exactly the same as the
> Internet requirement.
> 
> Given that v6 has the address space available, I don't see why
> the reticence to allow for microallocations. I can guarantee that
> any prefixes in our global routing table will have zero impact
> on the public Internet routing table because as a matter of policy
> we do not allow routes to be exchanged with the public Internet.
> And I believe there are several other such global Internets in 
> existence, perhaps as many as a dozen. IP addresses, v6 or 
> otherwise, are not the exclusive property of the public Internet.
> They belong to everybody who uses the Internet Protocol (IP)
> regardless of whether they exchange routes on the public network.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
>