[ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Mon Jun 18 10:11:54 EDT 2007

> While I think it is valuable for members of the ARIN 
> community to participate in the IETF process there's no way 
> for the IETF to know that the members who do participate are 
> representatives of the community.  Directly, how does the 
> IETF know that the people who showed up aren't the kooks?

If you have a problem with IETF process, this too is a matter for
discussion on IETF mailing lists, not on PPML.

> I think it is valuable to put the question "The ARIN 
> community supports the IETF's work on ULA-C" (or similar) to 
> the membership, determine consensus, and then have a way for 
> ARIN to issue a statement to the IETF that the ARIN 
> community, as a whole is for or against the concept.

Until people like you take the discussion of ULA-C to the IETF IPV6 WG,
there is no IETF work on ULA-C.

> There are alternatives to ARIN, although I don't think any 
> are particularly pretty.  Remember a few years ago when a 
> number of people were unhappy with the state of the DNS root, 
> so they ran their own roots with additional zones?  In theory 
> that could happen here.  If ISP's in the DFZ are unhappy 
> enough with ARIN's policies they could set up a new registry, 
> all agree to use it, and poof, ARIN is irrelevant.

Excellent idea. The DNS people tried it now people have a better
understanding of why the current unique root system is beneficial. If
someone wants to do this with addressing (and Cymru, completewhois, and
the various RRs already do this) then they should go ahead. It does not
hurt for people to try the experiment. The very nature of the
intelligent-edge IP internetwork is to enable such experimentation
without harming those who do not want to participate in the experiments.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list