[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Michael Richardson]

>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:

    >>
    >>>>>>> "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> ARIN doesn't set routing policy, but, ARIN does set addressing
    Owen> policy.

    Owen> Absent sufficient reliable filtration, ULA-C under a different
    Owen> set of rules from GUA serves as an end-run on those addressing
    Owen> policies.

So what I hear you saying is that, since one can't write routing policy
(i.e. "reliable filtration"), one has to write routing policy in the
form of addressing policy.  

Which is why I keep coming back to the point that the objections to NNC
seems to be because it violates some unwritten routing policy.

What I hear is that private enterprises are not permitted to implement
routing policy behind closed doors if it violates the "addressing"
policy in question.  
If in fact ARIN is not in the business of regulating routing policy,
then it should stop trying to do that via addressing policy.
DFZ slots cost money, it is true.

In IPv4 land, because addresses were scarce and DFZ slots are a commons,
one can get a handle on DFZ slot allocations via allocation policy.

In IPv6 land, linking a DFZ slot to allocation policy is not only wrong,
but it is a major disincentive towards deployment of IPv6.

  Please stop trying regulate a market that is outside of your mandate.

What is this quest to keep stupid people from doing stupid things?
This quest is keeping the rest of us from doing smart things.

(Well, back to IETF work)

-- 
]       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.