[ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

Jason Schiller schiller at uu.net
Fri May 11 09:05:10 EDT 2007 

Owen,

I just want to be clear about somehting you said.  You view ULA central as
"an end-run on the RIR process."  Is this because the expired ULC-central
draft suggests that some new "central allocation authority" be established
to assign these addresses?  

If the draft RFC was resurrected and all references to "cental allocation
authority" and "cental authority" were removed and replaced with clear
text explaining the following:

- IANA should divide FC00::/8 into eight /11s
- Each RIR would be given one /11 to make ULA-Central assignments
- Three /11s would be held in reserve for new RIRs in the future. 

Would you still think this was an end-run on the RIR process?

Would you be in support of the draft moving forward?

Do you think this should not be decided by an RFC, but rather as a global
policy through each of the RIRs?

If you prefer the RIR process, would you be in favor of a global policy
submitted to ARIN that had the provisions of the expired ULA-central
draft, with the modification of removing "cental authority" and clearly
designating how IANA should divide the space among the existing RIRs?

ULA-central text snippets below.

___Jason



draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt -- section 3.2.1
  "Global IDs should be assigned under the authority of a single
   allocation organization because they are pseudo-random and without
   any structure.  This is easiest to accomplish if there is a single
   authority for the assignments."

draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt -- section 7.0

  "The IANA is instructed to designate an allocation authority, based on
   instructions from the IAB, for centrally assigned Unique Local IPv6
   unicast addresses.  This allocation authority shall comply with the
   requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document, including in
   particular allocation on a permanent basis and with sufficient
   provisions to avoid hoarding of numbers.  If deemed appropriate, the
   authority may also consist of multiple organizations performing the
   allocation authority duties.

   The designated allocation authority is required to document how they
   will meet the requirements described in Section 3.2 of this document
   in an RFC.  This RFC will be shepherd through the IETF by the IAB."





==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller at uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller at verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.

On Thu, 10 May 2007, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:12:21 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: "william(at)elan.net" <william at elan.net>
> Cc: vixie at vix.com, ppml at arin.net, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica
>     (seen on slashdot)
> 
> ULA Central is intended so that some subset of the internet can reliably
> use it to interconnect while not being "globally" routed.
> 
> The problem I have with this theory is that the delta between a  
> collection
> of networks routing by mutual agreement and the internet is:
> 
> 	A.	Fuzzy
> 	B.	Non-Existant
> 	C.	There is no difference
> 	D.	Meaningless
> 	E.	Any and/or All of the above
> 
> Pick your favorite answer from the above and you've pretty much got it.
> If ULA central were limited to not exiting the local AS (in some  
> meaningful
> way, like routers won't forward routes or traffic to ULA addresses to  
> external
> adjacencies), then, I might see it as something other than an end-run on
> the RIR process.  However, in it's current state of "license for  
> anyone who
> wants to run a competing RIR for networks that choose to interoperate
> on this basis" I think it's a pretty bad idea.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> On May 11, 2007, at 12:03 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't understand your point about why ULA need to be registered if
> > its not going to be globally routed. Also PI is not the same as ULA -
> > PI do come from RIRs and in IPv6 there was no way to get PI (except
> > in a few special cases) until recent ARIN's micro-allocation policy.
> >
> > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Tony Hain wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that this will help inform the debate, and while Iljitsch  
> >> did a good
> >> job of outlining the issue, he left out a significant point:::
> >> People explicitly chose to be in the state of "as there is  
> >> currently no
> >> obvious way to make services only available locally" by insisting  
> >> that the
> >> local-scope addressing range have a global-scope as far as  
> >> application
> >> developers were concerned. Now the application developers are  
> >> complaining
> >> about the consequences of their choice, because the alternative to  
> >> 'no
> >> routing path for an attack' is to insert a device that has to make  
> >> policy
> >> decisions with limited information.
> >>
> >> The current ULA-central discussions will be directly involved in  
> >> this issue.
> >> It is critical that all of the RIR's have policies establishing a  
> >> mechanism
> >> for registering ULA-central prefixes & PI. For those who don't  
> >> recall, the
> >> reason ULA-central was tabled was that it was seen as a potential  
> >> end-run to
> >> acquire PI space in the absence of appropriate policy to do so out  
> >> of a
> >> range recognized for global routing.
> >>
> >> The need for keeping some things local while others are global is  
> >> real, and
> >> the lack of appropriate mechanisms to accomplish that through the  
> >> routing
> >> system that is designed to deal with path selection leads to entire
> >> industries for fragile work-arounds along with their increased  
> >> complexity.
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On  
> >>> Behalf Of
> >>> vixie at vix.com
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 9:59 PM
> >>> To: ppml at arin.net
> >>> Subject: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in  
> >>> arstechnica
> >>> (seen on slashdot)
> >>>
> >>> i think that this article will help inform the debate around the  
> >>> ipv6
> >>> transition:
> >>>
> >>> http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/ipv6-firewall-mixed- 
> >>> blessing.ars
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> >>> (PPML at arin.net).
> >>> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> >> (PPML at arin.net).
> >> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> > (PPML at arin.net).
> > Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> 
>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list