[arin-ppml] 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 assignment criteria

[David Farmer]

On 9/20/10 12:59 CDT, Davis, Terry L wrote:
> All
>
> As you think about this, don't forget truly global international infrastructures.  The International Civil Aviation Organization has published the requirement for new (Next generation) Air Traffic Management systems to utilize IPv6 addressing.  Currently they provide OSI Air Traffic Network addresses for all existing commercial and civil aviation globally to "all" aircraft owners/operators.
>
> They likely will be looking for a single global PI IPv6 allocation for this new IPv6 based Air Traffic Network infrastructure soon.

The specific example of an ICAO Global Air Traffic Control Network, 
while very important, I believe is out of scope for draft policy 2010-8. 
  This draft policy is intended for assignments directly to end-users 
networks from ARIN. By definition, an ICAO Global Air Traffic Control 
Network should not be thought of as a network for the use of a single 
end-user organization. While I think such a network is very important 
and should be able to get an IPv6 allocation and make assignments to the 
users of the network, I believe that is out of scope for this policy.

If we bracket the issue of a single global prefix for a moment, I 
believe within the ARIN region that 6.5.1.3. Criteria for initial 
allocation to other LIRs would cover such a network.  As for a single 
global prefix, I can see an argument for that, especially if each 
aircraft were given a globally unique prefix within a larger global 
prefix.  However, I'm not completely convinced a single global prefix is 
justified.  There may be other cases that justify global prefix, or at 
least claim to.  I think this is a good area for future discussion, 
probably involving global policy across all the RIRs, the NRO, and maybe 
even ICANN.  It might be useful for the RIR policy community to start 
thinking about what criteria would justify such a global prefix being 
set aside, the process for making such a determination, and how global 
prefixes should be coordinated, either by the RIRs or another standards 
body.

As more and more of what what was considered separate areas of 
technology start to utilize IP for the communication component within 
their technology, it will be necessary for the Internet standards and 
policy communities and the standards and policy communities that exist 
for these originally separate technologies to work together.  Compromise 
will be necessary, probably on both sides, but for sure at least on one 
side or the other.  Neither side should just assume that the way things 
have been done with previous technologies is the way things should move 
forward into the future.

> Take care
> Terry
>
> PS: Also don't forget that other folks like international non-profit organizations, international trade organizations, multi-entity national infrastructures (rail, grids), and others will likely also want IPv6 PI spaces too.

I think Internet connectivity for international corporations, 
for-profit, non-profit, governments or NGOs, are reasonably well covered 
by the current RIR system.  I think the issue of Global critical command 
and control networks, like the Air Traffic Control Network should be 
discussed further, but we should automatically assume they can't be 
handled within the current RIR system.

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================