[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "John Santos" <JOHN at egh.com>
> 2) There is no guarantee of routability given.  If you want your
> /48 routed, you will have to find someone willing to route it.
> Presumably, they would charge you for it.  Presumably, they would
> charge you much less to route a /48 (or whatever) they assigned
> to you out of their PA space.

I can't tell if you're talking about PI or ULA(-C) here -- which I suppose 
is the whole issue at hand.  ARIN doesn't/can't guarantee routability for 
any blocks, nor can it (or the IETF) guarantee non-routability.  That's up 
to individual operators.

> ARIN is in the number administration business.  It is *not* in the
> routing business.  It doesn't route anything for anybody (except
> maybe itself.)

Right, which is why we need to drop this silly ULA-C idea and just let 
everyone who needs PI get it.  Some will route their prefix publicly while 
others will not; that's not ARIN's concern.

> Maybe the problem here is people are expecting ARIN policy
> to enforce their business policy so they don't have to give the
> customer the bad news that they are going to charge them an
> arm and a leg to route their small subnet.  Instead, they just try
> to keep ARIN's policy such that their customers can't get small
> subnets in the first place.

You are aware that "small" means less than 256 hosts for a multihomed site 
or 1024 hosts for a single-homed site, right?  Everyone larger than that can 
already get a PI /48 under current policy.

If you have fewer hosts than that and have a compelling need for PI space, 
please describe your situation (including number of hosts, number of 
upstreams, and when you plan to deploy v6) so that we can discuss modifying 
policy to accomodate it.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov