[arin-ppml] Global Uniqueness vs Global Reachability

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 02:49:07 EDT 2009

There was a more recent (and IMO better) version of this called ULA  
Global. IIRC, it was a lot closer to what you are describing than ULA  
Cental was.


On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:13 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> 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
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list