[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
farmer at umn.edu
Tue Jan 19 18:25:04 EST 2010
This is kind of related to both 106 and 107, so I am splitting this
But to start, in current policy non-connected networks that meet the
criteria for an IPv4 assignment today qualify for an IPv6 assignment
too. So a non-connected network with hosts for an immediate utilization
of 25%, and 50% within a year, of a /20 may receive a /48. I have no
idea if anyone has requested a /48 for a non-connected network, but
current policy would allows that, and they are not assigned from the
same block as Internet connected /48s too.
So, I'm hearing some support for having these be made from ULA space,
1. I believe it would be necessary to put forward a RFC to enable that.
These are two previous drafts;
2. This would be a significant change from current IPv4 and IPv6 policy.
I'd want to here a lot more support from a lot more people before
moving in this direction.
My intent in 107 was to continue with current policy and allow
non-connected networks global addresses, but remove the host count as
part of the criteria.
I would also content the current text of 106 allows non-connected
networks with 1000 hosts to qualify for a /48 too.
At the Dearborn meeting I heard a lot of people say that ARIN shouldn't
dictate routing policy. I personally would find it hard to reconcile
that stance with the idea of ARIN assigning non-connected /48s from a
separate block. At least without an RFC defining centrally assignable
ULA addressing, then ARIN would not be defining it, the IETF would be,
ARIN would only be implementing something defined by the IETF.
So what is the direction the community wants to go for IPv6
What do others think?
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