[arin-ppml] ULA, GUA, NCN and the potential for abuse

[Owen DeLong]

ULA - Unique Local Addresses
GUA - Globally Unique Addresses
NCN - Non-Connected Networks

I'm seeing a lot of confusion and consternation about policy for these different
things.

Part of this comes from the fact that there are several perspectives on the issue
which are not entirely compatible.  There are people who legitimately want
addresses for non-connected networks. In some of these cases, assigning
global unicast space is a fine solution, but, in some cases, there is actually
a (political/administrative/policy/human factors) reason to want space which
is actually well-known to be "non-routable" on the global internet.

Some of the people who feel the need for globally unique addresses for
their NCN would like to get them from ARIN, but, see the current policies
as a significant barrier.

Part of it comes from the (erroneous) perspective that receiving a prefix from
ARIN entitles you to a slot in the "Global Routing Table".  This perspective
creates a certain amount of fear about over-allocation/over-assignment
leading to an unsustainable level of growth in the routing table.

I think a unified solution is possible. The following steps would be required:

1.	Reduce the criteria for getting Global IPv6 Unicast space to the
	minimum set of justified need and remove the artificial barriers
	created to prevent routing table growth from address assignment
	policy.

2.	Create a pool of Global IPv6 Unicast space that can be issued to
	applicants that believe they need space which is regarded as
	"non-routable" by community convention.

3.	Maintain the same qualification and assignment criteria for both
	groups of IPv6 unicast addresses. Do not differentiate them at
	the fee structure, either.

4.	Leave the determination of what actually makes it into a routing
	table up to those who run routers and remove it entirely from
	ARIN policy.

By doing this, we can meet the needs of non-connected networks that
require globally unique addresses and the needs of networks that
require globally unique addresses which are known by convention
to be "unroutable" as well as the more generic needs of networks
that are attached to the internet.  It prevents abuse of "unroutable"
addresses in the routing system because there is no advantage
to this form of abuse if the policies and fee structures remain
identical. Growth of the routing table is limited to legitimate
demand and ISPs remain free to reject routes which do not meet
their criteria.

Owen
(Speaking only for himself)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100318/fd8af26a/attachment.htm>