[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:33 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> William Herrin wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>>> A ula.nro.net type mechanism is the way to coordinate the creation of the
>>> random prefixes.  How about something like this.
>> David,
>> Something is escaping me here. For *registered* ULA's what's the point
>> of randomization? Wouldn't we better served with sparse? Or perhaps
>> split the space and do half sparse and the other half linear when the
>> requested net count is too large for the largest free space in the
>> sparse area?
> 
> I'm not sure it is entirely necessary.  But, there is an elegance to both kinds of ULA using an identical prefix selection algorithm. The only difference is if the Local/Central is being set or not. Which I believe was the original intent of how ULA was designed. This would also underscore the differences between ULA-C and PI addressing.
> 
> Some people have said that ULA-C needed to have a random prefix selection algorithm too, I don't really care either way.  But, if we allocate large blocks to the RIRs, why not let the RIRs manage the whole assignment process and just use their normal processes.  I don't see any benefit to allocating large blocks and then requiring the RIRs to use a random prefix selection algorithm within those blocks.  If your going to have a different prefix selection algorithm, between ULA-C and ULA-L, why make a third one, just use the RIRs normal one.
> 
> 
I'm in favor of assigning large blocks of ULA-C to RIRs and having them manage it identically to GUA where
the choice of GUA or ULA-C becomes a checkbox on the IP application form and nothing else.

That is what I have been advocating all along.

I am opposed to ULA-C on almost any other terms.

Owen