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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 5 18:55:01 EST 2009

> Then do that for your network. Others have different requirements  
> where use of a ula-c for private interconnects with PI for the  
> public interconnect is operationally simpler and lower cost. There  
> is nothing about the existence of ula-c that mandates its use. The  
> FUD about ula-c being a source of routing table bloat is really  
> about an overly restrictive PI policy. The simplest solution to  
> mitigate misuse of ula-c is to have the same organization deal with  
> allocations, then if misuse becomes widespread revise the PI policy  
> to make that be the lowest cost path for the abusers.
I agree that the PI barriers should be lower.  However, ULA-C is  
definitely a potential
end-run on the public policy process and, mark my words, will end up  
being routed
as soon as there are $$$ behind the desire to route it.

The only way to prevent such abuse of ULA-C in most cases (and still  
not all) would
be for ULA-C and PI to have identical policies administered by the  
same organizations.
At that point, what would be the advantage of ULA-C vs. standard  

Nothing about receiving a standard prefix mandates you routing it.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list