[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Azinger, Marla]

Just trying to clarify a couple notes here.

ARIN's charter does not included routing policy.  It only includes the management and stewardship of IP Address Space.  Also it does not guarantee that the address space you are allocated will be routable.

That said, there have been times that address policy has been passed that crosses that line, includes routing policy and tries to dictate how networks should operate, and that is a big point of contention when it does.   

Lately several proposals have been submitted that attempt to write routing policy into the IP Address Policy.  This needs to be debated heavily since its not in the Charter and it also makes the need for Network Operators to get involved on ppml to discuss the merits or lack thereof. 

Regards
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:30 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

-----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-----
_______________________________________________
PPML
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:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.