[arin-ppml] ULA-C

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 12, 2010, at 9:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Apr 12, 2010, at 8:08 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>>> The latter part, the without the hops and justifiable need issue is a
>>>> policy problem, indeed.  If ARIN is to issue ULA, it should be on
>>>> substantially the same terms as GUA so that there is no incentive
>>>> to (mis)use ULA where GUA is required.
>>>> I am all for reducing the GUA barrier to non-onerous.
>>> 
>>> And so we're back full circle to the beginning where you're not
>>> opposed to ULA as long as it's actually GUA and you're not opposed to
>>> making GUA non-onerous as long as we retain all the barriers and costs
>>> that make it onerous.
>>> 
>> Not at all... ULA as strictly address space that's theoretically unroutable
>> is fine with me.  I'm all for making GUA available for significantly lower
>> fees than the current pricing if it can be done practically. I am not for
>> any elimination of justified need, but, I'm actually willing to go pretty far
>> on lowering the level required for justified need.  Probably much further
>> than many other people.
> 
> Well, I will work with you tirelessly to identify practical ways to
> improve the process for getting GUA space, but that doesn't help the
> folks who intend to use ULA space. They have a need poorly served by
> any GUA or GUA-pinned regime you've suggested: negligible cost grab
> and go addresses for use with the barest hint of planning, consuming
> only the most trivial of the registry services: entries in two
> databases.
> 
> I don't think we want that for GUA. I think we *want* people to
> carefully consider how they intend to use GUA addresses before
> requesting them from the registry and throwing route announcements.
> Don't you?
> 
This is where we differ most strongly.  I'm really tired of the <pick your
noun> that GUA == Route Announcement or that route announcements are
somehow evil or should be avoided by the RIR.

1.	Not all uses for GUA will end up in the DFZ.
2.	It's not ARIN's place to judge who is worthy or set the criteria by
	which others decide who is worthy of entries in the DFZ. That is
	best left for people who run actual routers.

So, having said that, I think that ULA should have a little bit stronger
criteria than grab-and-go without planning anything. I think that GUA
should also have a little bit stronger criteria than that.

I do not think either should be much stronger than that.

> 
> Of course if you'd rather, we can simply build up the ULA registry at
> http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/list/
> 
Have fun with that.  Personally, I think that project is short-sighted and
harmful, but, as I've said, there's nothing ARIN can do about people who
want to run competing registries... Even if they chose to issue from 2000::/3.

> It'll be done poorly versus what a strong operation like ARIN is
> capable of but it'll meet the actual registered ULA need.
> 
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  I'm not particularly concerned with it one way
or another because I don't think it will gain as much traction as something
done by the RIR system. I choose to try and work in the ARIN framework
to make the best policies possible for the community in that framework.
I participate to much lesser extents in APNIC, RIPE, LACNIC, and AfriNIC.
I simply do not have the time to put significant effort into policies in other
registries.  If I did, I'd probably be more focused on domain name registry/
registrar messes before I'd spend time on the sixxs ULA registry.

Owen