[arin-ppml] Global Uniqueness vs Global Reachability

[David Farmer]

I was aware of Central ULA, but I don't think it ever really 
progressed.  While close its not exactly the same thing as I'm 
talking about; it uses pseudo random assignment like regular 
ULA.  The draft hand waves the DNS operations issues, and 
since it uses pseudo random assignment I'm not really sure 
how your going to make the DNS delegations work.  The draft 
also envisions, different Registry operations that is typical from 
an RIR, while I'm sure ARIN or any other RIR could do it.

As I said, even regular ULA can meet some of the use cases.  
SixXS has a registry for regular ULA, but again that is not the 
same thing either, and at least violates the spirit of the RFC 
4193. 

http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/

Anyway, ARIN already does Micro-allocations for Internal 
Infrastructure.  Which is much more like what I'm talking about 
than ULA.  A normal Unicast block with a published range that 
network operators can apply a routing policy to if they are 
inclined to.  However, what I'm talking about isn't necessarily 
for internal.  Its just not necessarily intended to be part of the 
mythical global route table.

I believe this is a way to have our cake and eat it too.  We can 
have both a policy that reinforces the routing hierarchy and that 
provides addresses for those that are willing to exist outside it.


On 3 Jun 2009 Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 05:53:59PM -0500, David
> Farmer wrote: > What if we made the Global Reachability assumption
> explicit > and created a separate pool without an explicit assumption
> of > Globally Reachability.
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt
> 
> (I don't know if that was the last/latest draft.)
> 
> I believe you idea is roughly the "ULA Central" idea.  The idea was a
> separate address pool (FC00::/7) that would be assigned by IANA (which
> of course may delegate to the RIR's, or create a new central entity,
> or any number of things) and bits would be given out as globally
> unique prefixes that are not expected to appear in the global internet
> routing table.  That is, ISP's would filter FC00::/7 on the commodity
> internet.
> 
> The community was not in favor of this idea several years ago, but
> times may have changed.
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
> http://archive.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-048-v001.html
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol-v6ula200704.htm
> 
> -- 
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> 



===============================================
David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota		       Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE		       Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029	       FAX: 612-626-1818
===============================================