[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19 Mar 2010 13:29, John Santos wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2010 stephen at sprunk.org wrote:
>   
>> 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?

The ISP _will_ listen because the customer has money, collectively if
not enough individually.

> 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.
>   

If this would really work, then why bother having a separate database
for ULA-C?  We could just put them in WHOIS like any other addresses,
just with a comment on the record that RFC XYZ says they shouldn't be
routed publicly.

>> 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.
>   

We're supposed to be considering the good of the entire community here,
not just ourselves, and IMHO ULA-C is bad for the entire community.  It
made a _small_ bit of sense back before PIv6 was allowed, but that
excuse is gone.  If GUAs are too difficult for legitimate users to get,
we need to fix the GUA policy, not create a way for people to bypass the
system.

If "no one can require that you route them" really worked, why have an
IPv6 allocation/assignment policy at all, rather than simply handing out
address blocks to anyone who asked for them?  After all, ARIN doesn't
guarantee routability of _any_ numbers.  Also, by specifically saying
that ULA-Cs are unroutable, that implies that non-ULA-C addresses _are_
somehow guaranteed to be routable, and that is a dangerous implication
for us to make.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3646 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100319/d9fcbe60/attachment.p7s>