[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[David Farmer]

Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Perhaps mostly for my own sanity I would like to summarize what I
> believe has been said a number of times in these threads as simply as
> possible so that we might move forward a bit:
> 
> 1) "Private" address space (with or without NAT) is not a very good
> security measure (if a measure at all).
> 2) Regardless of the validity of point number one (which I happen to
> agree with) there are a large number of Orgs and folks who  believe
> that they *need* "private" address space.
> 
> And my own take on what this means:
> 1) ARIN is responsible to the entire community.
> 2) The community contains people who want/need "private" address space.
> 3) Therefor, ARIN should work to provide "private" address space to
> the community.

I agree with all of those points.

> We should probably focus on the draft policies on the plate for
> Toronto and put the whole ULA-C conversation on hold until after the
> meeting, but at that more appropriate time someone should draft a
> policy proposal that addresses the assigning of ULA-C to those who
> believe they need it.  

I mostly agree except for one point, currently DP2010-8 includes 
assignments of PI address space for non-connected networks (NCN). This 
basically comes from the concept of NCN as it is in current IPv4 policy.

Personally, I believe there is a place for both NCN PI and for
ULA-C.  Further, I believe PI, NCN PI, and ULA-C, should have similar if 
not identical policies, but that is for a later discussion. Also, I 
believe NCN PI and ULA-C can be treated as separate policy questions.

However, I'm not sure everyone agrees with this.  So, the ULA-C question 
may inject itself into DP2010-8's discussion.  Additionally, for 
DP2010-7 a non-routed prefix is likely to be a point of discussion too. 
Therefore, at least some understanding of where to go with ULA-C may 
become necessary to move 2010-8 or 2010-7 forward, which ever direction 
we decide to go.

As you suggest if possible, it might be helpful if we could discuss 
these policies in isolation of the ULA-C question and then come back to 
the ULA-C question for the next round of policy discussions.  But, this 
will take everyones cooperation, I don't think it would be proper to 
dictate this from the podium.

Another possible tactic would be to eliminate both NCN PI or a 
non-routed prefix from these policies and include that as part of a 
ULA-C policy discussion.

Other ideas?

How would people prefer to proceed on this?  A little thought ahead of 
time on this might help focus the discussion and make for a more 
effective floor discussion in Toronto.

Thanks

> Then we can discuss the policy details and stop
> debating the operational (read: not policy related) issues surrounding
> "private" address space and NAT (maybe).

Yes, please.

> $0.02
> ~Chris

In my opinion it is worth way more than $0.02. :)

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