Leo Vegoda wrote:
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?
No, it solves a similar problem for a different (though possibly
partially overlapping) set of networks, and reduces the pressure to
apply a hammer when a screwdriver is what's really needed.
I would anticipate that for ULA-C to be implemented, RIR policy would
need to be updated to codify how the RIRs would administer ULA-C. As an
active member of ARIN's policy process, I see ULA-C as something that
should be administered by the RIRs, not by a separate registry, so that
the RIRs can direct applicants to the appropriate resources (PI for
large or multihomed networks, ULA-C for private, non-routed space for
those who don't qualify for PI, etc.)
-Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
