[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 22, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
>>>>>> "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.  
> 
I don't consider filtration of bogons to be routing policy so much as a
mechanism to enforce addressing policy.  If it is a matter of addressing
policy to claim that "these addresses are reserved for purposes not
including routing on the global internet", then, it is a matter of addressing
policy to be able to rely on some mechanism to prevent that, or, recognize
that such an addressing policy is unlikely to be respected.

> 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.
> 
I don't object to NCN.  I object to NCN on different terms from GUA which
encourage the possibility of abuse of the NCN which would degrade the
utility of NCN for either the NCN purpose or the "it's not usable as GUA"
purpose.

> 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.
> 
Actually, I don't care what you do behind closed doors.  However, if
it's truly behind closed doors, then, you don't need to globally coordinate
it, you can create a registry behind those same closed doors to handle
it.  What I'm saying is that if you want ARIN and/or the RIRs in general
involved, it should be done in such a way that it does not become a
well known easy path to end-running GUA policies set by the RIR system.

> 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.
> 
Agreed.

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

>  Please stop trying regulate a market that is outside of your mandate.
> 
I'm not trying to do any such thing.  I want GUA to be easy and cheap
for all.  I want it untied from routing.  I want to offer GUA and GUA
tainted on the same simple terms of justified need.

> What is this quest to keep stupid people from doing stupid things?
> This quest is keeping the rest of us from doing smart things.
> 
No such thing.  I just don't want to stupidly break global addressing policy
in the process.  If you want to do something stupid behind your own closed
doors using your own registry, feel free.  If you want to do something
stupid in a globally unique way that is guaranteed the ability to be perceived
as harmless to the internet while doing great actual harm, then, I have
an issue because that's not stupid people doing stupid things to themselves,
it's stupid people doing stupid things to everyone else while feeling no
consequences themselves.  In general, policies that allow such actions
do not lead to good stewardship.

Owen