cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Apr 12 11:13:29 EDT 2010
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
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. Then we can discuss the policy details and stop
debating the operational (read: not policy related) issues surrounding
"private" address space and NAT (maybe).
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML