[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Fri Feb 5 16:51:12 EST 2010

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)

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;

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.

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 mailing list