[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[John Santos]

On 19 Mar 2010 stephen at sprunk.org wrote:

> 
> On 19 Mar 2010 10:58, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> >>> As for whois, none of these numbers would be recorded in the RIR whoi=
> s directories. However, each RIR should operate an instance of the ULA-C =
> directory lookup tool which will query single /48 blocks from the allocat=
> ion tool's database.  This should not pose any serious problems to
> >> Are you saying that when I do a whois on this ULA-C, that the=20
> >> server will go do that query for me?
> > Nope. When you do a whois on a ULA-C address, the server will
> > send back something like this:
> >
> > Comment:    These addresses are ULA-C addresses as defined in RFC 7777.=
> 
> > Comment:    These addresses are not intended for use on the public
> > Comment:    Internet and are not recorded in ARIN's whois directory.
> > Comment:    However you can query the ULA-C database at
> > http://ula.arin.net
> >  =20
> 
> So, rather than putting them in WHOIS, which is supposed to be
> comprehensive, now the RIRs are going to have to operate a _second_
> directory service which duplicates WHOIS's functionality but contains a
> different subset of records?  That seems like a waste of time, effort,
> and money, since it doesn't really accomplish _anything_.
> 
> If RIRs list ULA-C assignments in _any_ publicly-accessible database,
> customers can go to their ISP and say "My number is in $RIR's database,
> so you have to route it for me!"  That is not good, because _many_ ISPs
> will listen to such arguments, and in a decade or less there will be no
> meaningful difference between the routability of ULA-Cs and GUAs.

This is completely illogical.  Why should the ISP listen?  ULA-C is *not*
supposed to be routed, and even if the ISP is brow-beaten into routing
it, all the other ISPs will filter it and so the customer's demand does
it virtually no good, even if it is listened to.

> 
> ULAs are _local_, i.e. not meant to be seen on the Internet.  If
> individual orgs want to know which of their non-Internet peers is using,
> they can establish that via standard contractual means--or demand that
> their peers get GUAs.
> 
> > Comment:    Note that ULA-C addresses are assigned randomly. There is
> > Comment:    no need to check a specific address for availability and
> > Comment:    ARIN can *NOT* accomodate any requests for a specific block=
> =2E
> >  =20
> 
> I don't see any point in including this information in WHOIS, nor is it
> all that different from how any other addresses are assigned by ARIN.
> 
> > Comment:    More information is available at http://ula.arin.net
> > Comment:    and at http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/ipv6.txt
> >  =20
> 
> That'd be fine, except I don't approve of ARIN linking to external sites
> that are not officially part of the Internet governance community.  The
> Cymru folks do good work, but official they are not.
> 
> I still object to a ULA-C block in general, for a variety of reasons; my
> comments here are just to make sure that if we go down that path, we do
> it in the least-broken way possible.

You might as well object to vanilla ice cream because you prefer
chocolate.  If you don't want ULA-C addresses, don't ask for any.
No one would be forcing you, and no one can require that you route
them.


> 
> S

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539