farmer at umn.edu
Tue Apr 13 00:12:53 EDT 2010
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
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
>> 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)?
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