[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> Rather, the worry is the company that goes down a ULA path 
> when they should not out of ignorance or poor planning.  
> Then, 5, or 10 years on when they realize the mistake look at 
> the cost of renumbering and compare it to the cost of buying 
> off their ISP's.  Forced to spend a few million dollars on 
> renumbering over six months, or to pay an extra $10k/month to 
> their ISP to route the prefix, they may well choose the latter.

I can't imagine how IPv6 renumbering could cost anyone this 
much short of burning their IPv6 addresses into EPROMS in
every device.

> Already communities of interest are choosing the same ISP for 
> greater SLA's.  They may not need it routed to the global 
> Internet, but rather you see ISP's routing these only 
> internal to their network and their customers.  In essence, 
> the ULA boundry becomes the ISP, rather than the Enterprise.  
> It's an interesting situation, because it doesn't hurt the 
> "global" routing table, but it does put much the same 
> pressure on the ISP's backbone devices.

Sounds fine to me. It's based on two-party agreements and
the people incurring the cost get paid. If people want to
do this kind of thing with ULA-C addresses, there is no
reason for us to try and stop them.

> We must plan for those who are short sighted, ignorant, lazy, 
> and simply dumb.  No, that doesn't mean making their lives 
> easier, but it does mean finding ways to prevent them from 
> peeing in the pool and making it unsuitable for all.

Bad attitude. To see what happens if that idea catches on,
watch the film Idiocracy. People have to be allowed to make
mistakes, fail and learn. In fact, you should expect any
policy to have some failures built in, some corner cases
where it works out badly. If a policy claims to have none
of these, it is either a bad policy in masquerade, or it is
a policy that nobody has examined closely.

--Michael Dillon