[arin-ppml] GUA vs ULA vs ?

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

>> What on earth are non-connected networks? The very essence of a 
>> network is connectivity. This phrase should be erased from our 
>> discussions because it is confusing and an oxymoron.

> You are probably right, but I started the conversation with that term
because that > is what it was called in ARIN's IPv4 policy.  Not
necessarily a good reason, but a > reason.

I just looked around and discovered this in RFC 2050:

   All other requestors should contact its ISP for address space or
   utilize the addresses reserved for non-connected networks described
   in RFC1918...

It comes after 3 a) which is the justification that I have often
quoted in reference to COINs like SITA, RADIANZ and the auto industry.
Section 4.3.5 seems to echo the RFC 2050 wording but I fear that some
people are interpreting this to also include networks which do not
announce prefixes into the DFZ of the public Internet. I think that
DFZ issues are entirely separate from the question of non-connectedness.
And in IPv6, I think that because of the vast supply of addresses,
there should really be no issue in treating COIN users just like
public Internet users and allocating them PA and PI space.

> > The ULA-C addresses that we are discussing would be globally unique 
> > addresses but are clearly not GUA because they are not from FC00::/7

That should say "not from 2000://3"

> Sorry, I'd swear that said "Global Unicast Address" when I 
> read it, but you are correct.

GUA = 2000://3  The addresses that RIR's allocate as PA and PI
ULA = FC00://7  RFC 4193
ULA-L = FD00::/8 AKA ULA-RANDOM
ULA-C = FC00::/8 currently in limbo with IETF

> No, write me up a definitive style sheet for PPML post and 
> I'll follow it. :)

You could trim the quotes a bit more, but in general your
posts are easy to follow.

--Michael Dillon