[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
packetgrrl at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 11:05:52 EST 2010
Per ARIN's Number Resource Policy Manual it says this:
Provider independent (portable) addresses issued directly from ARIN or other
Regional Registries are not guaranteed to be globally routable. Therefore,
ISPs should consider the following order of priority when requesting IP
- Request IP address space from upstream provider
- Request IP address space from provider's provider
- Request IP address space from ARIN (not guaranteed to be globally
Address allocations and assignments from ARIN are not guaranteed to be
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca> wrote:
> -----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
> 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
> ] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device
> 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
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML