[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Matthew Kaufman]

David Farmer wrote:
> George Bonser wrote:
>>
>>>> Excuse me, the IANA at the request of the IETF set aside fc00::/7
>> for
>>>> the purpose of addressing non-connected networks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> So what is really being looked at, then, is a registry for fc00::/7
>> space with the L bit set to 0, or in other words, defining the L bit per
>> section 3.2 of RFC4193 as "assigned by RIR or whomever" with chunks of
>> fd00::/8 being doled out by the various RIRs (or whomever) for networks
>> in their area.
>
> No that is what Bill is proposing, I'm not completely opposed to that, 
> but it is not currently being proposed.  Nor do I think ARIN could do 
> this unilaterally.  I was thinking this would take IETF action.  Bill 
> proposed the idea of a RIR global policy, and maybe that could be an 
> option, I need to think about that more.
>
>>> Perhaps one or more Regional Not-The-Internet Registries should apply
>>> to
>>> IANA to administer assignments within that space.
>>
>> Would seem to me like a better idea than using globally unique space for
>> unconnected networks. It would require renumbering if you went
>> connected, though.  So does it boil down to wanting space that is not
>> connected so your unconnected address space nets doesn't count against
>> density requirements for connected space but allows you to connect it
>> without renumbering later?  And if so, how do you know when someone has
>> converted their "unconnected" net to "connected" by announcing the route
>> and that space should now count against requirements to justify space?
>>
>> What is to prevent someone from requesting space for "unconnected"
>> networks in addition to "connected" for a total of more space than they
>> would otherwise be able to justify and then announcing the unconnected
>> space a week later?
>
> If there is no distention, you just get one kind of space, the 
> question is how did you justify it.
>
>> I think "unconnected space" space should be just that and not
>> "temporarily unconnected space for right now".  But having pieces of it
>> doled out from a central authority would make it easier for two networks
>> that are not connected to the global internet to interconnect without
>> address space collision.
>
> I want people to realize that current IPv6 policy allows someone who 
> could justify a non-connected network under IPv4 policy and to get 
> globally unique IPv4 addresses per 4.3.5 to get an globally unique 
> IPv6 addresses too.
>
> I believe we should do one of the following;
>
> 1. Implement PP#107 as written allowing non-connected network 
> assignments from common blocks with Internet connected assignments, 
> or;  (I believe this is the status-quo of the current convoluted IPv6 
> policy)
Right. You can already do this, but they look just like connected ones. 
These are the kind you should get if you're not connected *now* but plan 
to connect *later* and don't want to renumber.
>
> 2. Define a separate blocks of address space for non-connected 
> networks from the space ARIN has already or get more space from 
> 2000:/3 for this. By directing ARIN in PP#107 to make assignments for 
> non-connected networks from separate defined and published blocks, or;
This is a bad idea.
>
> 3. Implement ULA-Central or a similar proposal, either through the 
> IETF or the RIR global policy process, as make assignments from a 
> block within fc00::/7.  In this case I would suggest pull 
> non-connected networks out of PP#107 and starting a whole new policy 
> for this.
>
>
If there's going to be a central registrar for never-to-be-connected 
networks (something for which I believe there are good arguments), this 
is what would need to happen, and the ARIN PDP wouldn't be involved 
until late in this process, and then only if ARIN was going to be the 
world's or this region's registrar for that kind of space (something 
which I don't believe should be a given).

Matthew Kaufman