[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Michael Richardson]

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


>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 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.

    Owen> No. If you get space from ARIN now, it is up to the ISPs
    Owen> whether or not they will accept the route for it or not.  For
    Owen> example, Verizon is currently rejecting all IPv6 /48 routes.
    Owen> Whether or not that is a good decision on their part has
    Owen> nothing to do with ARIN policy.

Remember that thread is about non-connected networks.


1) I said that I would like address space that is non-connected

2) I wanted it marked as such

3) people said that this would never work because people would persuade
   ISPs to route it anyway, and this is bad, because it means that
   people would try to get non-connected address space as a loop around
   ARIN "policy"

4) I then said, but you see, the allocation policy is being used as a 
   proxy for limiting who can routed!

5) then I was re-assured that ARIN allocations are not guaranteed to
   be routeable, so I shouldn't confuse the two.

6) then you say that it's really up to the ISPs to decide, and isn't
   it terrible that some ISP has some policy not route some set of
   address space, even through ARIN has given it out.


Remember: I'm arguing that should be very liberal with small (/48+ ) 
          allocations, charging a very nominal book-keeping fee, and do
          non-connected allocations out of a pool that can be clearly
          identified as such, so that ISPs can clearly make up the
          policy they want.

- -- 
]       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

iQEVAwUBS2xfO4CLcPvd0N1lAQLQcgf/Su5SOK/pSmFIOJ0SzqsR1+5lKGUHARpD
yklEuEzrciybfWR7RUO6eZqBCwzh+XozbnA4RYTurwWfYQ9PIWFxZz4moS0YKYnm
0GCsATr7+xyfnDixpjx2ylrgdIa0MJsl2A5/JyHmiJuDuAe2XXd1ekGbPPOY79Se
6JSIuz3wQxeH1Nt3u+nEAhlIZSzMPcB+wVyDtL7qZqVWdvlhn2Jiv30xuO1VxiN2
3EGLI+oe469GLpMbPI3Kg4rrdgAP+irgpNQo+8df9iwFjGfGWX1CQLEW9iijmm8v
JDFk+/D0i4K3GMnMOFnnTqBYobn4WI5+4WrtD18v5RVgaO6hegctmA==
=Q6PN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----