[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
farmer at umn.edu
Fri Feb 5 18:15:55 EST 2010
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
> 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
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
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
More information about the ARIN-PPML