[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

[Paul Vixie]

> The whole "routing is not guaranteed" thing is obviously in there  
> because of the lawyers since ARIN can't force ISPs to route any given  
> block of address space, not because routability isn't a goal.

yes.  but also because of the other part of my text, which you didn't
include in your reply so i don't know whether you agreed with it or not:

>> ... we would have to define "routable", we could face implied liability for
>> routability on "normal address space" (even if we continue to disclaim it
>> in the NRPM as we do now), and we would then walk the slippery slope of the
>> changing definition "largest" with respect to breidbart's maxim:

	>> But what *IS* the internet?
	> It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive
	> symmetric closure of the relationship "can be reached by an IP
	> packet from".		--Seth Breidbart

in other words, the definition of "routable" depends on who you want to be
able to exchange packets with.  if three networks are numbered in 10.1/16,
10.2/16, and 10.3/16, and they interconnect, then that address space is
"routable" for *some* definition of "routable".  i don't think we want
to have to define, and then live with the implications of, the word
"routable".

> > non-routable space comes from ietf/iana, not the RIRs.
> > so, for ARIN to start allocating nonroutable space is a big change.
> 
> Keeping the RIRs out of the ULA business would nicely avoid any  
> problems resulting from that. Just let the domain sell the ip6.arpa  
> domains in question.

see above.  dunno why you didn't read it the first time i posted it here but
i've posted it again and added some explaination.  "universal" or "unique"
we know the definition of.  "local" and "routable", not so much so.