<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Mar 19, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"michael" == michael dillon <<a href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com">michael.dillon@bt.com</a>> writes:<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> michael> I think that we should go ahead with allocating a /8 for<br> michael> ULA-C addresses without any significant technical changes<br> michael> to this Internet draft<br> michael> <<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02</a>><br><br> michael> However, there could be some changes to clarify who does<br> michael> what, etc.<br><br>Very good analysis. I'm on board!<br><br></div></blockquote>Making ULA-C available on the terms specified in the referenced</div><div>draft is an invitation to massive abuse.</div><div><br></div><div>That was the whole point of my ULA, GLA, NCN, and the potential for abuse</div><div>post.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> michael> As for whois, none of these numbers would be recorded in<br> michael> the RIR whois directories. However, each RIR should operate<br> michael> an instance of the ULA-C directory lookup tool which will<br> michael> query single /48 blocks from the allocation tool's<br> michael> database. This should not pose any serious problems to<br><br>Are you saying that when I do a whois on this ULA-C, that the server<br>will go do that query for me?<br><br></div></blockquote>Quite the opposite, actually.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></font></font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div> michael> I would encourage ARIN and RIPE folks to work on a global<br> michael> policy for ULA-C that assumes IETF approval of a ULA-C<br> michael> RFC. Then, once we have the global policy, I believe that<br> michael> the IETF will approve a ULA-C RFC that creates ULA-C<br> michael> addresses.<br><br>The communications I have had say that the IETF is waiting for the RIRs<br>to tell them what they need.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Interesting.</div><div><br></div><div>Personally, I think that the RIRs have much work to do on policy to</div><div>accommodate NCN and that it should be done through a unified</div><div>set of policies which allow reasonable management of GUA to</div><div>encompass ULA-C as essentially a community convention for</div><div>indicating a network should not be globally routed and nothing</div><div>more. To do this without creating a potential for abuse, what is</div><div>needed is a much more relaxed GUA policy divorced from the</div><div>idea that every GUA prefix issued will end up in the routing</div><div>table.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>