On 20 Jun 2007, at 12:36am, Scott Leibrand wrote:
[...]
Is this not already possible with a /48 PI assignment from ARIN?
Yes, but only if you "qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation
from ARIN under the IPv4 policy currently in effect." That
currently means you must either be a large network (qualifying for
a /20), or you must be large enough to run BGP, be multi-homed, and
be large enough to justify a /22.
Is ULA-C a new solution for a problem that's already been solved
with PI assignments or does it solve a new problem?
I believe there is a gap between the current PI policy, which is
targeted at organizations large enough to qualify for a routing
slot, and the need many smaller organizations have for their own IP
space for various internal uses. Some of those organizations will
be happy to use ULA-L, but some will need a guarantee of uniqueness
and the ability to list their IP space in DNS (.arpa) and in
whois. If we can meet the needs of those organizations without
having to relax the requirements for PI space, we can reduce future
pressure on the DFZ.
So am I right in reading your answer as saying that the advantage of
ULA-C is that it solves the same problem that ARIN's IPv6 PI policy
solves but better. In effect, developing ULA-C helps side-step ARIN's
policy development process?
Regards,
--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
