[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

mack mack at exchange.alphared.com
Sat Jun 16 21:59:47 EDT 2007

Original message:
>Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:13:40 -0500
>From: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
>Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
>To: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>, <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
>Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106670703C at mail>
>Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>I agree wholeheartedly.  There is nothing you can do with ULA-C that you can't do with PI and a minor firewall rule or
>two.  Leaving the space as PI gives it either-or capability, putting it as ULA reduces PI.  (And don't talk about
>'more PI than we could ever use'..  remember when Mr.
>Gates told us you would never need more than 640K of RAM?)(of course he denies it now..)

Comments on ULA-C:

The space for ULA-C is already listed as 'reserved'.
This is the first half of the /12 listed for ULA.
The second half is ULA-L.
Therefore it isn't a 'waste'.
It is usefully to some people.
There is no 'grey area' about the routing.
The whole point of ULA-C is 'not globally routable'.
These are not intended to be publicly routed any more than ULA-L is.
Both will probably be 'leaked' just as private address space is now.

People wanting IPv6 NAT should be given the tools to do so.
I don't want it but there are people that do.

If the community wants a rule to provide /48s and corresponding ASNs to
businesses, there needs to be discussion on that but no one has put forth a
policy proposal.  I am fairly certain it would be immediately shot down.
No ones current equipment could handle the number of routes that would result.
Whether we like it or not routing capability is going to drive the vote on that one.

Comments on IPv6 exhaustion:

I am sure there are uses that could take up large chunks of IPv6 address space.
I don't think people realize how truly huge IPv6 is.

For comparison:
Moon: Mass 7.35 x 10^22kg.
IPv6 address space: 3.4 x 10^38

Assuming every person on the planet receives a publicly routable /48.
We will only have used 1/46000th of the public space.

<sarcasm type="medium" humor="slight">
How many sensors in the carpet?
How many nanobots floating in our bloodstream will it take?
Should medical nanobots use public address space?

Now if we give every insect their own /48 .. THEN we have a problem.
Insects must not be given anything larger than a /64.
That would consume half of the address space.

We definitely need EUI64 for insects.
No one is going to sit there and assign them IP addresses.
And if they crawl over to the neighbors their IP addresses can automatically be reassigned.

Hopefully, we have moved to IPv7 by that point.
Useful new feature of IPv7 -
    Structured interstellar routing (how many bits for intergalactic, inter-solar, interplanetary, etc?).
    Quantum Addressing (IP addresses for every electron, proton, neutron, etc and each state of such particles)
    Alien Transport Protocol conversion (alien races have their own IP versions that must communicate).

If the above numbers are off, someone please correct them.

LR Mack McBride
Network Administrator
Alpha Red, Inc.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list