[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
>>>>>> "michael" == michael dillon <michael.dillon at bt.com> writes:
>    michael> I think that we should go ahead with allocating a /8 for
>    michael> ULA-C addresses without any significant technical changes
>    michael> to this Internet draft
>    michael> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02>
> 
>    michael> However, there could be some changes to clarify who does
>    michael> what, etc.
> 
> Very good analysis. I'm on board!
> 
Making ULA-C available on the terms specified in the referenced
draft is an invitation to massive abuse.

That was the whole point of my ULA, GLA, NCN, and the potential for abuse
post.

>    michael> As for whois, none of these numbers would be recorded in
>    michael> the RIR whois directories. However, each RIR should operate
>    michael> an instance of the ULA-C directory lookup tool which will
>    michael> query single /48 blocks from the allocation tool's
>    michael> database.  This should not pose any serious problems to
> 
> Are you saying that when I do a whois on this ULA-C, that the server
> will go do that query for me?
> 
Quite the opposite, actually.
> 
>    michael> I would encourage ARIN and RIPE folks to work on a global
>    michael> policy for ULA-C that assumes IETF approval of a ULA-C
>    michael> RFC. Then, once we have the global policy, I believe that
>    michael> the IETF will approve a ULA-C RFC that creates ULA-C
>    michael> addresses.
> 
> The communications I have had say that the IETF is waiting for the RIRs
> to tell them what they need.

Interesting.

Personally, I think that the RIRs have much work to do on policy to
accommodate NCN and that it should be done through a unified
set of policies which allow reasonable management of GUA to
encompass ULA-C as essentially a community convention for
indicating a network should not be globally routed and nothing
more. To do this without creating a potential for abuse, what is
needed is a much more relaxed GUA policy divorced from the
idea that every GUA prefix issued will end up in the routing
table.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100319/10b9a38c/attachment.htm>