[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Jeroen Massar jeroen at unfix.org
Sat Jun 16 22:32:58 EDT 2007

mack wrote:
> 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.

You actually mean /7, fc00::/7, where fc00::/8 is reserved for ULA-C and
fd00::/8 is reserved for ULA (RFC4193)

Also see http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space

It would really help if you would actually read the documents and get
your facts straight.

> The second half is ULA-L.

ULA-L? There really is no such thing. It is either ULA (RFC4193) or
ULA-C, which is not defined yet, except for maybe section 3.2 of RFC4193
which calls it "ULA with a Global ID", which is rather odd "Unique
*LOCAL* Address with a *GLOBAL* ID" ;)

> Therefore it isn't a 'waste'.

True, the address space is already reserved, but that can be undone
quite easily and it can be reassigned for different purposes.
There are, afaik, no implementations that block usage of this address
space or treat it specially in any way yet.

> It is usefully to some people.

What exactly is that "use" you are talking about?
Can you explain the advantage of PI. Also do mind the big disadvantage
that it has: People will want to connect to the internet one day.

> 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.

Thus your assumption is exactly what a lot of other people say: use PI.

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

Which people want this? Let these people come forward and demonstrate
their needs for it. Saying that there "might be a need" is not good
enough. Show us use cases. Show us why it does not fit under PI.

> 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.

There are 800 routes in the IPv6 DFZ today. Hardware vendors claim to be
handle 2.000.000 of those with ease with current hardware. How fast do
you think that IPv6 will grow?

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

You are so forgetting HD ratios. Look them up, it is a good read.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 311 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070617/3b778bf1/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list