[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
bill at herrin.us
Mon Feb 22 15:15:49 EST 2010
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> Michael Richardson wrote:
>> So far I haven't seen a proposal (other than 103) which really addresses
>> this need. It seems like the best answer is an RFC to be written to
>> tell IANA to delegate FC00::/16 to the RIRs.
> This is approximately what I said two weeks ago, and so I still agree
> entirely. If the RIR wants to hand out addresses which "will never be
> routed" then IETF needs to specify what bits are set that mean "never be
> routed", rather than "lets just pick a corner of space we've been delegated"
I concur as well. And if we want to hand out addresses for "may be
connected in the future" instead then they should meet the same
criteria as the ones for "are connected single-homed now."
One additional thought: there's no hard and fast rule as to which has
to come first: the RFC or the policy. An obvious objection to the RFC
is that the RIRs haven't requested it. Having a policy in place for
what to do with the numbers might help "grease the skids" for an RFC.
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
More information about the ARIN-PPML