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

[Matthew Petach]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:13 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> ULA - Unique Local Addresses
>>> GUA - Globally Unique Addresses
>>> NCN - Non-Connected Networks
...
> It is not my intent to supplant RFC-1918 style ULA-Random
> addressing.  I'm talking about the people who want
> globally unique (ULA-Central style) addressing which is
> currently NOT available anywhere at any cost in IPv6.
> There have been proposals for it in IETF but they have not
> yet gained any consensus.
>
>> In your model, the network would now have to pay
>> annual ARIN fees to use IPv6 addresses internally,
>> *even* if they are never using them on the global
>> internet.
>>
> Not at all.  They would only need to pay if they want
> REGISTERED addresses.  Sorry if this was not clear.
> No registration service, no registration fee. Simple.
...
> There are two types of non-routed blocks.
>
> non-routed non-unique blocks should remain fee-free and
> their use should come with an appropriate disclaimer.
>
> non-routed guaranteed unique registered blocks should be
> registered just like routed blocks and should have the same
> policy and fee structure.
...
>> And, just so it's clear, I support the rest of your effort, and think
>> it's a good idea; I simply think that your 'same fee as for real blocks'
>> clause will end up elevating these blocks to the same status in
>> the eyes of many of the enterprise companies that end up paying
>> for the space year after year.  ^_^;
>>
> Hopefully with the clarification above, it makes more sense.

Definitely--with the clarification that non-registered, RFC1493
'statistically unique' non-routed address blocks are still free and
are not covered by this, then yes, I think unifying the structure
makes considerable sense--that removes my only concern/objection
to the proposal.

> Owen

Thanks again for the clarification!

Matt