[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks
owen at delong.com
Mon Mar 22 16:40:54 EDT 2010
On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>>>>>> "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?
ARIN doesn't set routing policy, but, ARIN does set addressing policy.
Absent sufficient reliable filtration, ULA-C under a different set of rules
from GUA serves as an end-run on those addressing policies.
> 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?
I guess my primary point is that enabling them to do stupid things to
the detriment of the internet in general seems like a stupid thing to
More information about the ARIN-PPML