[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[David Farmer]

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>> I have always liked 6to4 addressing.  If you have some IPv4, 
>> you have plentiful amount of IPv6.  But there was no reverse 
>> DNS... Well, it seems that http://6to4.nro.net now lets you 
>> populate it...
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> There is the model for doing reverse DNS for ULA-C. And also
> for the directory of ULA-C registrations which would be at
> http://ula.nro.net. That page would explain what ULA is,
> provide a calculator for generating a ULA-RANDOM address,
> direct people to the 5 RIR web pages for registering ULA-C
> addresses, provide a ULA-C directory lookup button, and
> provide a link for enabling reverse DNS for your ULA-C block.
> People would then have a choice of whether or not to have
> reverse DNS or to have it delegated to the same phantom IANA
> server that handles RFC 1918 reverse DNS.

No way, go read RFC 5158, that defines this.  It requires you to connect 
to that web site from the 6to4 address range you want to register, this 
is what I call implied authorization.  How would this kind of implied 
authorization for an address range that is NOT suppose to be globally 
routed?

Also, if you read the RFC this implied authorization solution has a 
number of pitfalls that would make it undesirable for enterprise use. 
It is only acceptable for 6to4 because 6to4 itself is considered a 
transition mechanism.  In other words the problem goes away when you 
implement native IPv6.

But if you can find a way to make it work, I'm happy to reconsider.  I 
just do see how it would work and provide an enterprise class solution.

>> ULA can be reclaimed if the policy says so.
> 
> And the RFC could require that the RIRs have a policy covering
> reclamation, and maintaining an ongoing relationship with ULA-C
> registrants.

I believe this is a good idea.  This kind of stewardship is why I 
believe this should be implemented by the RIRs and why it is not going 
to be as simple and inexpensive as some people think.

>> I think the AC needs to tell come to some consensus about 
>> "tainted"GUA, or ULA-C.  I think that the IETF will cooperate 
>> if it's ULA-C.
> 
> I am certain that the IETF will cooperate if the 5 RIRs jointly
> propose a model for ULA-C. I am also certain that we can do
> the work in parallel, i.e. it will not be necessary to wait 
> until a ULA-C RFC is finalised before getting some wording for
> a global policy into the 5 RIR policy proposal processes.

I agree, my whole purpose for starting this thread is to try to develop 
that consensus.  If you think this kind of addressing is important you 
should speak up.

> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================