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

Paul Vixie paul at vix.com
Fri Jun 1 13:00:46 EDT 2007

> 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

> > 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list