[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[David Farmer]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> This leads to my own ultimate question: why doesn't Section 6.5.8 cover 
> interior needs sufficiently?  

At least right now, in the end for ARIN, I believe a common policy for 
PI, NCN PI, and ULA-C makes sense to me.  Or, if for some reason one 
policy isn't doable, then three different policies that are essentially 
identical.

However, I've been trying not to jump strait to a final conclusion, but 
to help facilitate the process of finding a consensus that allows ULA-C 
to move forward.  And I have to admit, I've waffled on and rethought the 
exact details a number of times in the past few months regarding ULA-C.

Further, until we can develop a consensus for how ULA-C should work, who 
should provide the registry services for it, and under what kind of 
terms, coming up with an ARIN policy for making ULA-C assignments, 
through 6.5.8 or what ever final process seems premature.

> And this goes to your point (4), which I 
> quote:
> 
>> 4. The availability of ULA-C for internal addressing will likely make 
>> PA addressing facing the Internet more palatable at least for some 
>> classes of enterprise users.  This might be implemented with NAT66, 
>> multiple RAs, or any number of possible future solutions.  Like maybe 
>> some variation of LISP, or some other GSE type solutions.  But, the 
>> details are irrelevant that is an operational issue not a policy one. 
> 
> Of the arguments in your message, it would seem to me that this one, 
> combined with whatever security argument one would be the ones that 
> should be further developed.  

Do you have suggestion how to further develop this argument?

> In addition, given that ARIN and the RIRs 
> have demonstrated reasonable flexibility in terms of making changes to 
> policies, one could reasonably ask the question as to whether this 
> proposal is well timed.  

Could you clarify what you mean here, are you suggesting this should 
wait?  If so, to an extent I agree, we realistically can't take this up 
until the Fall ARIN meeting, is that still to soon? However, as I 
discuss in my response to Chris, this issue is at least partially 
entwined in a couple policies that will be discussed next week in Toronto.

> The introduction of NAT66 into the discussion 
> is one that would need to be carefully considered, and LISP and ILNP 
> (GSE's successor) are still nascent technologies.

Are the considerations with regard to NAT66 and ILNP different for ULA-C 
than for ULA-L (RFC 4193)?

> Regards,
> 
> Eliot

-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================