[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Michael Richardson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>>>> "David" == David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> writes:
    David> At the Dearborn meeting I heard a lot of people say that ARIN
    David> shouldn't dictate routing policy.  I personally would find it
    David> hard to reconcile that stance with the idea of ARIN assigning
    David> non-connected /48s from a separate block. At least without an
    David> RFC defining centrally assignable ULA addressing, then ARIN
    David> would not be defining it, the IETF would be, ARIN would only
    David> be implementing something defined by the IETF.

I don't understand your view here.

ARIN does define routing policy right now --- if you ask ARIN for
address space, you get routable address space, and ARIN defines the
policy by which you can get it.  There is presently only one question I
can ask, and one set of criteria I can satisfy.  If I satisfy the
criteria I get one thing: routable address space.

How do you see it? 

What I liked about policy 103 was that it tried to remove ARIN as the
arbitor of a single policy, and instead provide ARIN with a series of
different policies which it could execute.  The evident for which policy
was executed is expressed in which block address space is allocated
from.

This makes it clear to the ISPs which set of criteria had been satified,
leaving the ISPs able to formulate their own policies.   yes, that
likely leads to a more disconnected IPv6net than we had with IPv4net,
but that's okay to me --- most enterprises' should be using PA prefixes
to get youtube.  


It's all the other uses (some of which that we do not even know about
yet), that enterprises need the other kinds of policies for.  I suggest
that fewer enterprises will need their own blocks in IPv6net than needed
it in IPv4net.  

What I have been asking for is for a different policy that provides for
a different kind of address space (at the request of the requestor...). 

If you are saying that ARIN can not make this decision with an IETF
action, then okay --- the pushback I've gotten over the years from IETF
is that this is an allocation policy matter, and I should talk to my
RIR.  As part of that, many have pointed out that RIPE is much more
liberal with blocks than ARIN is.  (I do not live in Europe or directly
manage networks there, so I have no direct RIPE experience, only
second-hand experience, including a few unrouted RIPE /48s which were
just thrown at me to use in the past)

- -- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQEVAwUBS2qvxoCLcPvd0N1lAQIEAAgAwiR86cY7Eo50rmnv9F3/eW6EXyuQ6S/F
re7BmSfxOX4r/+9CHGVNDOmLy3GcwCIytndUuWVhJQwnlF7pojhzfpM4fH2BMn4q
Se5/kVn3re7wZ/JvnSAhaO972un/ENB1kg6nZhLr2IVmqzeX6PgFz/OezyGO4El9
aQMaCJ/yWtuEW49cC+yL1Ru0VI76gpxPyHWuuC6O6+Kqpsg8uLa89n99r2XoOyy2
YfqW5Fp0LqiQadqSEZKsL+Hw0HyuCSY58G8HgQ8Isvlk6tzwzW+gTtHopnjHnWK+
izpcCn+1dKqRq4CfLpm9MgfaFL+N1THVELzrVK53phsK3AcxN21HvA==
=KnwN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----