bill at herrin.us
Tue Apr 13 09:26:03 EDT 2010
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 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.
If you can get the netops to sign off on eliminating things like the
multihomed criteria and the the minimum host count criteria which for
IPv6 /48's serve solely to suppress the public route count, I'll
stand in support. I think that's a fantasy but more power to you.
> 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.
This is where your position is unreasonable and self-serving. ULA is
private IP addresses, the successor in spirit to the no-rules RFC1918.
Of course it has to be grab and go. Self-serving because the real
reason you don't want it to be grab and go is that would mess with
your idea of unifying it with the GUA policy which would be difficult
to responsibly architect as grab and go.
Make your case for making RFC1918 more difficult to get than it is if
you want, but please get on the same page as the rest of us in
understanding that ULA is IPv6's RFC1918 with a nearly identical use
profile regardless of whether a registry is involved.
>> Of course if you'd rather, we can simply build up the ULA registry at
> 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.
It has 25% as many ULA registrations as IPv6 GUA announcements on the
public Internet and is growing as fast or faster than IPv6 is. Barring
someone else stepping forward to do a proper job (i.e. the RIRs) it's
on track to hit critical mass around the same time as IPv6 over all.
It doesn't do a great job meeting the need we're discussing, but it
does meet that need, something at which the notions you've suggested
still fall short.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML