farmer at umn.edu
Mon Apr 12 19:44:43 EDT 2010
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.
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.
> Then we can discuss the policy details and stop
> debating the operational (read: not policy related) issues surrounding
> "private" address space and NAT (maybe).
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML