[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
owen at delong.com
Sat Jun 16 13:18:28 EDT 2007
On Jun 16, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Edward Lewis wrote:
> At 12:40 -0700 6/15/07, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Using PI for the purposes of ULA-C is no waste at all. Sectioning
>> off a
>> huge chunk of address space for ULA-C is the waste.
>> ...ULA-C ... provides no additional benefit over PI space while
>> simultaneously creating some unnecessary classification of addresses
>> that makes their status in the routing table ill-defined at best.
> After reading this, I swing back to the position of thinking
> $undef_ref_ULA-C is a bad idea *IF* PI space is freely available to
> all comers, not just multi-homers.
> But if routing fears cause PI space to be restricted, then I am still
> sympathetic to network-layer-scoped addresses. Still I am losing
> faith in scoped addressing above layer 2 (i.e., except link-local)
> will ever be beneficial.
I completely agree. Therefore, the right thing to do is let ARIN manage
address space and let people who run routers manage the routing
table. This artificial management of routing table space through RIR
policy simply doesn't work in a v6 world. Because of the need for
balancing address conservation with routing table growth, we had
to live with these difficulties in IPv4. However, in IPv6, ARIN is no
longer an appropriate point of control for routing table issues. This
must be turned back to the ISPs.
More information about the ARIN-PPML