[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Fri Jun 15 15:14:31 EDT 2007

Jordi-  We are saying the same thing.  Just how you get there is different.  

It is true, we could either modify or eliminate the current ARIN policy to work in unison with what might be a finsished RFC on ULA-C.  I just believe that sometimes it is easier to start with a fresh policy.  In this case, I think it would be less confusing to expire the current policy and replace it with a new one that is more fitting as opposed to trying to modify the current one. A modification could quickly confuse anyone who has not been following all of the ULA emails and conversations.

I suppose we can figure this out when we get to that bridge.

Cheers!
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
ARIN AC

-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 9:03 AM
To: ARIN People Posting Mailing List
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Hi Marla,

In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about the
possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and talking
with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but not
ULA.

I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I was
told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available.

So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not expire,
but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of global
unicast.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Responder a: <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400
> Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen at unfix.org>, <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml at arin.net>, <ipv6 at ietf.org>,
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Conversación: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this:
> 
> If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's
> responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as
> ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be
> expired and no longer an active policy.
> 
> And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better
> than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal
> Infastructure.  Ie Standardization, conservation ect...
> 
> Cheers!
> Marla Azinger
> Frontier Communications
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
> Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM
> To: jordi.palet at consulintel.es
> Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6 at ietf.org;
> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
> 
> 
> [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this
> happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if
> there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they
> will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
> 
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could
>> use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal
>> infrastructure's.
> 
> I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator
> who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their
> argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does
> not work that way.
> 
> Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's,
> have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they
> can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that
> for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies
> even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block.
> 
> Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for
> about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this
> address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those
> needs. Firewalling is the key here.
> 
> 
>> I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and
>> links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
>> 
>> For example in RIPE NCC:
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
> 
> That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and
> various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the
> RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out.
> 
> Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space.
> ULA-C as such is useless.
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(PPML at arin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml