[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Michael Richardson]

>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
    >> It's not one ISP that customer with $$$$ has to convince, but
    >> *all* of them.  A customer with that much money can certainly
    >> afford to buy globablly routable /48, or a /32 or something.

    Owen> If there were enough reliably good filtering, sure. There
    Owen> isn't, and, as long as one ISP somewhere accepts it, it'll get
    Owen> to a surprisingly large fraction of the internet and
    Owen> eventually, it'll end up getting accepted.

Uhm. I thought:

From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:39:59 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)


> If the answer is NO, then there are those that will argue that this  will
> be used as a run-around "routing" policy.
>
But the RIRs are not supposed to set "routing" policy.  "Routing" policy
is supposed to be set by those who actually run routers.


======

which is it? 
Does ARIN set routing policy or not?

    Owen> ULA-C isn't going to be blocks which don't work on the
    Owen> internet. It's going to be blocks which people expect not to
    Owen> work on the internet, but, really they do under some
    Owen> circumstances.  End result, a false sense of security which is
    Owen> worse than no security.

    Owen> NAT != Security Address Obfuscation != Security
    Owen> Misconfiguration == Insecurity

    Owen> Belief otherwise merely increases risk.

What's your point?
Stupid people do stupid things?

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.