[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Mon Mar 22 05:07:53 EDT 2010

> So, rather than putting them in WHOIS, which is supposed to 
> be comprehensive, now the RIRs are going to have to operate a 
> _second_ directory service which duplicates WHOIS's 
> functionality but contains a different subset of records?  

Firstly whois is not comprehensive. It currently contains only
ARIN allocations. If you query a RIPE allocated address then
you get comments similar to what I showed. And if you query 
ULA-RANDOM you get nothing at all. Secondly, the ULA-C query
would not duplicate whois's fuctionality because you don't
have the same interconnected set of records like technical
contacts, ASNs, Orgs, etc. Just one ULA-C block and the 
identity and contact info for the Org who registered it. 
There is no need for a technical contact since this block will
never be used for internetworking outside of private two-party
agreements. Remember that the entire ULA block is a bogon.
These are not Internet addresses.

And most importantly, the ULA-C registry is not ARIN's. It
is a single global registry used by all 5 RIRs.

> That seems like a waste of time, effort, and money, since it 
> doesn't really accomplish _anything_.

Sure it does. It gives organizations a registered ULA-C block
at a fee that they are willing to pay, and keeps a clean 
separation between ULA-C addresses and Internet addresses.

> If RIRs list ULA-C assignments in _any_ publicly-accessible 
> database, customers can go to their ISP and say "My number is 
> in $RIR's database, so you have to route it for me!" 

They can try, but I expect that the ULA-C directory will have
similarly worded disclaimers as I suggested for whois, so
the ISP will point to that and say, "Can't you read plain 
English? It says that these addresses are not for use on
the public Internet and should be considered bogons.".

> That is 
> not good, because _many_ ISPs will listen to such arguments, 
> and in a decade or less there will be no meaningful 
> difference between the routability of ULA-Cs and GUAs.

ARIN is not the intelligence police. If you really believe 
that stupidity will increase (see the film Idiocracy) then
I suggest that there is nothing ARIN can do about it.

> ULAs are _local_, i.e. not meant to be seen on the Internet.  
> If individual orgs want to know which of their non-Internet 
> peers is using, they can establish that via standard 
> contractual means--or demand that their peers get GUAs.

However ULA-C addresses are registered in a 3rd party registry.
If the RIRS do NOT manage that registry then we will have no
policy control and it is possible that it will grow legs
and demand to compete with ARIN on a level playing field.
However, if the RIRs DO manage the registry, we can keep
it in the corner where it belongs. If people want to 
register globally unique local blocks which are not meant
to be seen on the Internet, then that is what we should
provide. After all, ARIN is not the "Internet" registry.
ARIN is the registry for various numbers related to IETF
protocols which are in use, both on and off the Internet.

> > Comment:    Note that ULA-C addresses are assigned 
> randomly. There is
> > Comment:    no need to check a specific address for availability and
> > Comment:    ARIN can *NOT* accomodate any requests for a 
> specific block.
> I don't see any point in including this information in WHOIS, 
> nor is it all that different from how any other addresses are 
> assigned by ARIN.

Well, since that is an ARIN operational issue, not a policy one,
you have no say over what ARIN may or may not include in a whois
message. I merely suggested this in the context of an example.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list