[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
>>>>>> "Leo" == Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> 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.
> 
>    Leo> It's not that a smart, well run company can afford the cost up
>    Leo> front; they can and will do the right thing.
> 
>    Leo> Rather, the worry is the company that goes down a ULA path when
>    Leo> they should not out of ignorance or poor planning.  Then, 5, or
> 
> okay.
> 
>    Leo> Already communities of interest are choosing the same ISP for
>    Leo> greater SLA's.  They may not need it routed to the global
>    Leo> Internet, but rather you see ISP's routing these only internal
>    Leo> to their network and their customers.  In essence, the ULA
> 
> Sounds like a COIN to me.
> Sounds like *PROPER* application of a NCN to me.
> 
> What is the problem?
> 
>    Leo> boundry becomes the ISP, rather than the Enterprise.  It's an
>    Leo> interesting situation, because it doesn't hurt the "global"
>    Leo> routing table, but it does put much the same pressure on the
>    Leo> ISP's backbone devices.
> 
> ISP gets significant revenue, and significant lock in.
> Sounds like a win for the ISP.  Said ISP could have used PA space too.
> 
> Why should we have a address allocation policy preventing ISPs and
> customers from having this routing policy behind closed doors?
> 
We shouldn't.  The bigger question is why do we need an addressing
policy which relegates this to a separate fraction of address space
rather than simply letting addresses be addresses and allowing ISPs
and their customers to determine the routing policy on a block-by-block
basis.

>    Leo> We must plan for those who are short sighted, ignorant, lazy,
>    Leo> and simply dumb.  No, that doesn't mean making their lives
>    Leo> easier, but it does mean finding ways to prevent them from
>    Leo> peeing in the pool and making it unsuitable for all.
> 
> It's not a pool. It's a VAST OCEAN.  It's nice environmentalism to
> realize that even the oceans are not infinite,  but it's not ARINs place.
> 
Sure it is.  ARIN is charged with stewardship of that particular ocean
and environmentalism is exactly their charter.

> What you describe is a ROUTING POLICY.
> 
What he describes is routing consequence. There is a difference
between policies which dictate routing and considering the routing
consequences of a candidate policy.

> This concern over theoretical situations that have occured in IPv4-land
> only due to significant scarcity and only reported in "heresay" (due to
> NDA, etc.) are preventing deployment of IPv6 by many smaller, more
> innovative enterprises.

Here, I must disagree. A liberalized PI policy would serve those smaller
more innovative enterprises at least as well as ULA-C, if not better.
Especially if it provided for an equal ability to get "tainted" addresses
on request.

Owen