[arin-ppml] IPv6 Non-connected networks

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Mar 22 16:54:51 EDT 2010

On Mar 22, 2010, at 1:18 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>> "Leo" == Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org> 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.
>    Leo> It's not that a smart, well run company can afford the cost up
>    Leo> front; they can and will do the right thing.
>    Leo> Rather, the worry is the company that goes down a ULA path when
>    Leo> they should not out of ignorance or poor planning.  Then, 5, or
> okay.
>    Leo> Already communities of interest are choosing the same ISP for
>    Leo> greater SLA's.  They may not need it routed to the global
>    Leo> Internet, but rather you see ISP's routing these only internal
>    Leo> to their network and their customers.  In essence, the ULA
> Sounds like a COIN to me.
> Sounds like *PROPER* application of a NCN to me.
> What is the problem?
>    Leo> boundry becomes the ISP, rather than the Enterprise.  It's an
>    Leo> interesting situation, because it doesn't hurt the "global"
>    Leo> routing table, but it does put much the same pressure on the
>    Leo> ISP's backbone devices.
> ISP gets significant revenue, and significant lock in.
> Sounds like a win for the ISP.  Said ISP could have used PA space too.
> Why should we have a address allocation policy preventing ISPs and
> customers from having this routing policy behind closed doors?
We shouldn't.  The bigger question is why do we need an addressing
policy which relegates this to a separate fraction of address space
rather than simply letting addresses be addresses and allowing ISPs
and their customers to determine the routing policy on a block-by-block

>    Leo> We must plan for those who are short sighted, ignorant, lazy,
>    Leo> and simply dumb.  No, that doesn't mean making their lives
>    Leo> easier, but it does mean finding ways to prevent them from
>    Leo> peeing in the pool and making it unsuitable for all.
> It's not a pool. It's a VAST OCEAN.  It's nice environmentalism to
> realize that even the oceans are not infinite,  but it's not ARINs place.
Sure it is.  ARIN is charged with stewardship of that particular ocean
and environmentalism is exactly their charter.

> What you describe is a ROUTING POLICY.
What he describes is routing consequence. There is a difference
between policies which dictate routing and considering the routing
consequences of a candidate policy.

> This concern over theoretical situations that have occured in IPv4-land
> only due to significant scarcity and only reported in "heresay" (due to
> NDA, etc.) are preventing deployment of IPv6 by many smaller, more
> innovative enterprises.

Here, I must disagree. A liberalized PI policy would serve those smaller
more innovative enterprises at least as well as ULA-C, if not better.
Especially if it provided for an equal ability to get "tainted" addresses
on request.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list