[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria
mcr at sandelman.ca
Mon Jan 18 08:40:03 EST 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
>> Speaking off the cuff, I think I'd shape it like this:
>> 1. Ask IANA for a /16 delegation of of the existing ULA space, e.g.
>> FC42::/16.Failing that, simply assert regiistration over a portion of
>> ULA space e.g. FD42::/16.
Owen> Personally, I would rather see us move in the direction of making no
Owen> distinction between numbers for connected and disconnected networks.
Owen> Unless you want to put ARIN in the role of gatekeeper to the routing
Owen> table (which I think is a bad idea), there's no need for such
Owen> a distinction.
The lack of distinction is what makes ARIN the role of gatekeeper.
If all addresses can go into the DFZ, then there has to be criteria
appropriate on *ALL* allocations that says, "This might show up".
If there is a distinction, then there is no concern.
In fact, if there is a distinction, not only is there no concern about
end-run-around, but it is also possible to make the criteria stronger,
and push more PA addressing to many organizations which presently own
their own IPv4 address space, but are not really multihomed.
(Serially multihomed... akin to serial monogamy...)
>> 2. With a mostly automated web-based system, accept registration of
>> /48's within the space.
>> 3. A registration account costs $10/year. No concept of organizations;
>> just accounts each billed seperately.
>> 4. All /48's in the account must be contiguous to the maximum extent
>> possible. Each /48 registered costs an additional $1/year. In ULA
>> parlance, each /48 is "one Global ID."
Owen> This pricing strategy, while interesting, isn't particularly
Owen> relevant to a policy discussion. If you want to talk about
Owen> fees ARIN should
Owen> charge, I believe it is better suited to the arin-discuss
I disagree strongly.
>> 5. Private registration available if desired at no cost. If private,
>> ARIN will publish a relay email address that can be used to contact
>> the registrant's real email address. They'll publish no other
>> information. After all, do we really need to know that the DOJ is
>> using a particular range of private IP addresses privately inside
>> their private system? I don't think we do.
Owen> Depends on whether it leaks into the global routing table or not.
If clearly labelled can not leak into the global routing table.
>> 6. RNDS delegation in the public DNS if desired. Let the registrants
>> decide for themselves if they want leaky name lookups to lead back
>> inside. Could be very helpful in a large private network where you
>> don't want every participant to have to plug lots of exceptions into
>> his DNS server.
Owen> Yep... Alsouseful for the organization that built out a huge "non-
Owen> connected" network that later needs to connect and they'd rather
Owen> bribe their ISP than renumber.
If clearly labelled, the ISP simple can not take the bribe.
That's good for *ALL* of us.
>> 7. Registration is non-binding. ARIN guarantees only that if both
>> networks participate in registration then they won't have conflicting
>> address use.
Owen> Should there be inter-RIR cooperation on this such that if you
Owen> in ARIN registration, you're not going to conflict with APNIC
Owen> If so, this probably requires a global or globally coordinated
Yes, it has to be coordinated, no this is not such a big deal.
There are enough bits to go around.
] He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life! | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
then sign the petition.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ARIN-PPML