[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Michael Richardson mcr at sandelman.ca
Mon Mar 22 16:08:27 EDT 2010

>>>>> "Owen" == Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> writes:
    >> It's not one ISP that customer with $$$$ has to convince, but
    >> *all* of them.  A customer with that much money can certainly
    >> afford to buy globablly routable /48, or a /32 or something.

    Owen> If there were enough reliably good filtering, sure. There
    Owen> isn't, and, as long as one ISP somewhere accepts it, it'll get
    Owen> to a surprisingly large fraction of the internet and
    Owen> eventually, it'll end up getting accepted.

Uhm. I thought:

From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:39:59 -0700
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)

> If the answer is NO, then there are those that will argue that this  will
> be used as a run-around "routing" policy.
But the RIRs are not supposed to set "routing" policy.  "Routing" policy
is supposed to be set by those who actually run routers.


which is it? 
Does ARIN set routing policy or not?

    Owen> ULA-C isn't going to be blocks which don't work on the
    Owen> internet. It's going to be blocks which people expect not to
    Owen> work on the internet, but, really they do under some
    Owen> circumstances.  End result, a false sense of security which is
    Owen> worse than no security.

    Owen> NAT != Security Address Obfuscation != Security
    Owen> Misconfiguration == Insecurity

    Owen> Belief otherwise merely increases risk.

What's your point?
Stupid people do stupid things?

]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr at sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list