[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[David Farmer]

Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> David Farmer wrote:
>> 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.

Should they have to meet basically the same criteria as a Internet 
connected assignments them?

>> 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.

To maybe help develop a consensus, could you expand on why you think 
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).

Are you suggestion we should do both #1 and #3?  It kind of seems to me 
that you are, and I hadn't thought of that option.  I think I hear you 
saying there are three types of network in question;

1. Internet Connected
2. Non-Connected
3. Never to be Connected

And, never to be connected networks should be served by ULA or 
ULA-Central, and that filtering them is probably OK.  But, that 
non-connected networks should be served out of 2000::/3 and that making 
them easy to filter them is not OK.

This is an interesting idea I need to think about more.

> Matthew Kaufman

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
===============================================