[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Mar 19 11:37:42 EDT 2010

On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

>>>>>> "michael" == michael dillon <michael.dillon at bt.com> writes:
>    michael> I think that we should go ahead with allocating a /8 for
>    michael> ULA-C addresses without any significant technical changes
>    michael> to this Internet draft
>    michael> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02>
>    michael> However, there could be some changes to clarify who does
>    michael> what, etc.
> Very good analysis. I'm on board!
Making ULA-C available on the terms specified in the referenced
draft is an invitation to massive abuse.

That was the whole point of my ULA, GLA, NCN, and the potential for abuse

>    michael> As for whois, none of these numbers would be recorded in
>    michael> the RIR whois directories. However, each RIR should operate
>    michael> an instance of the ULA-C directory lookup tool which will
>    michael> query single /48 blocks from the allocation tool's
>    michael> database.  This should not pose any serious problems to
> Are you saying that when I do a whois on this ULA-C, that the server
> will go do that query for me?
Quite the opposite, actually.
>    michael> I would encourage ARIN and RIPE folks to work on a global
>    michael> policy for ULA-C that assumes IETF approval of a ULA-C
>    michael> RFC. Then, once we have the global policy, I believe that
>    michael> the IETF will approve a ULA-C RFC that creates ULA-C
>    michael> addresses.
> The communications I have had say that the IETF is waiting for the RIRs
> to tell them what they need.


Personally, I think that the RIRs have much work to do on policy to
accommodate NCN and that it should be done through a unified
set of policies which allow reasonable management of GUA to
encompass ULA-C as essentially a community convention for
indicating a network should not be globally routed and nothing
more. To do this without creating a potential for abuse, what is
needed is a much more relaxed GUA policy divorced from the
idea that every GUA prefix issued will end up in the routing


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100319/10b9a38c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list