[arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern

[joel jaeggli]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> So I take it you consider the existing ULA's "statistical uniqueness) to
> be sufficient?  One thing I've heard a small amount of support for is to
> have RIRs register unique addresses that are intended to be used for
> private addressing, and assign them out of a range dedicated for that
> purpose.  I'm not sure if that's necessary, myself, but I'm open to
> arguments from anyone who thinks so.

Private address space isn't unique in v4 or v6 if you follow the ula-l
guidelines you get statistically non-intersecting but your uniqueness
guarantee isn't present. just like it isn't in ipv4. if this where a
problem in ipv4 no one would use it... ula-c is dead.

joel

> -Scott
> 
> Chris Engel wrote:
>> Scott,
>>
>> I really didn't mean to stir up the NAT hornets nest again. I was
>> speaking in more general terms that things which do not specificaly
>> NEED to be tied to IPv6 to make it function should not be. NAT was
>> simply an example of my own particular pet-peeve area of this....I'm
>> sure others here have thier own....some of which MAY actually involve
>> ARIN policy.
>>
>> About the only thing that could be done policy-wise in regards the
>> feasability of NAT in IPv6 is simply ensure that certain address space
>> is reserved for Private Networks and will NEVER be handed out to
>> anyone to be publicaly routed... just as the 10.x.x.x /8 and
>> 192.168.x.x /16 spaces are currently reseved under IPv4. However, that
>> seems to already be covered by rfc4193.... so I'm not sure there is a
>> specific issue here.....other then to realize that the speed of IPv6
>> adoption may not be as quick as many here would hope for.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christopher Engel
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 2:00 PM
>> To: Chris Engel
>> Cc: 'arin-ppml at arin.net'
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv4 Depletion as an ARIN policy concern
>>
>>
>> Chris Engel wrote:
>>  
>>> IPv6's best chance of adoption is to make the transition from IPv4 as
>>> seamless as possible for everyone involved. Which also largely means
>>> not necessitating a change of the methodologies and practices that
>>> people currently use with IPv4 more then is really required. It also
>>> means not tying other agenda's to IPv6's bandwagon.
>>>
>>> The one thing that I think pretty much everyone can agree is a
>>> positive with IPv6 is more address space available....at least I
>>> certainly don't think anyone would perceive that as a negative. The
>>> more things that you require people surrender in order to achieve that
>>> additional address space (in my case it would be primarily NAT... but
>>> it could be anything else for some-one else).... the less likely it is
>>> they are to determine the positives outweigh the negatives of
>>> adoption.
>>>
>>> If an argument is worthy of making (such as the idea that NAT is bad
>>> and need be eliminated).... let that crusade be fought SEPARATELY from
>>> IPv6. The same holds true for things ARIN is directly responsible
>>> for...such as rules for the justification of IP address space.
>>>
>>> IPv6 may ALLOW for those issues to be addressed (such as some make the
>>> case it allows for the obsolescence of NAT or far more liberal
>>> requirements for receiving address space)..... however it should not
>>> NECESSITATE that they be....unless IPv6 itself cannot be made to
>>> function without them..... and if it does, then it's design is poorly
>>> conceived.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> Well put.  In light of that, where do you see the need for policy
>> work? Are there places where ARIN policy is interfering with
>> transition by unnecessarily bundling other considerations into
>> addressing policy?  Are there areas (such as the rules for
>> justification of IP address space) where we haven't yet done enough to
>> make the transition as painless as possible for everyone involved?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Scott
>>   
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
>