[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[cja@daydream.com]

I think a common pool is a good idea. It allows these non-connected
networks to connect if their needs change and keeps them from having
to get another allocation/assingment if they do choose to connect at a
later date.

I do see the desire to perhaps filter the non-connected networks and
that having them out of a dedicated block facilitates that purpose but
long-term when we are in an exhaustion phase again that address space
would be stranded and although globally unique perhaps highly
filtered.  You could argue that we have SO much IPv6 that we're never
going to run out but I don't buy that argument.

As does David.. I would love to hear what other folks think about this.
----Cathy

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:27 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> This thread has mostly wondered off of my original question, but it
> still has been an interesting discussion, none the less.
>
> The intent of my question is how do we want to deal with networks
> that are not connected to the Internet.  In other words networks
> that have no intention of achieving global reachability but still
> many need or want globally unique addresses.  ARIN Policy
> specifically addresses a special case of what I am asking about for
> IPv6 in 6.10.2 Micro Allocation for Internal Infrastructure, and it
> creates a special pool for this use. Also, by the fact that current
> end-user assignments are based on IPv4 Policy, then section 4.3.5.
> Non-connected Networks allows such networks to get an IPv6
> assignment, currently out of a common pool for end-user assignments.
>
> Since I've been working on rewriting ARIN's IPv6 policy I want to
> know how the community want this to actually work, my goal is a more
> direct and clear path for these network to get addresses.  However,
> I see a faction of the ARIN community that want these assignments
> made from a filterable block.  Then, there is another faction that
> says, wait a minute, that means ARIN is defining Routing Policy.
>
> I believe that these network have a right to globally unique IPv6
> addressing just as much as anyone else.  But, personally I'm mostly
> agnostic to the question if the these assignments should be made
> from a block designated for non-connected networks or just assigned
> from a common pool with all other assignments.  I can see valid
> arguments on both sides.
>
> Basically it boils down to, if we assign from a common pool then
> there is no distinction and you can only have the address space you
> can justify connected or non-connected.  If we make a distinction
> then, anyone must to be able to get such a non-connected assignment
> without regard to if they have an assignment intended intended for
> global connectivity.
>
> The current text I have in PP#107 calls for a common pool because
> that seemed most consistent with the current policies as I
> understand them.  But as I said, I'm mostly agnostic on this issue.
> So I started this thread to try develop a consensus one way or the
> other.  Because, we can't do both at the same time.
>
> So I would like to see continued discussion on the specific issue of
> a common pool for all assignments VS. a specific pool for non-
> connected networks.  Additionally, I intend to raise this issue on
> the floor in Toronto.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> ===============================================
> 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
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> 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.