> >> So, IMHO it would be premature to turn over address > >> delegation authority at this time. > > > > then let's keep going. > > My apologies for joining the discussion a bit late, ...
no problem. > I think that UCA and UCA-C is a clever technical solution to a problem that > exists primarily in the political/financial area, and which does not even > have a good reason for existing. for context, most of the people i've seen discuss this topic think that ULA (and -C) are ugly technical solutions made necessary by the lack of an id/loc (identifier/locator) split in the internet's architecture, as exacerbated by moore's law and peering economics. > I think that ULA has come about as an answer to the need for IPv6 space, > which does not have procedural overhead or cost (both of which occur when > requesting space from RIRs). then you are factually wrong at the outset. but let's see what we can make. > Additionally, I believe that there exist RIR policies which are resulting > in some pressure towards implementing ULA/ULA-C -- policies which can and > should be modified by the membership constituency of the RIRs. on this, there is broad agreement, but the outcome has been to request that IANA (by way of an IETF specification) set aside some non-DFZ space so that RIRs can hand it out for non-DFZ use with a lower barrier to acquisition. > ULA-C is an interesting middle ground, but the mere existence of ULA-C as a > concept, and as a draft that we're discussing, is a strong indicator that > these RIR policies are a problem. And moreover, as a compromise, ULA-C is > causing more harm than good. obligatory disclaimer: while i'm not speaking for ARIN here, i am a member of ARIN's board of trustees, and i have not set ARIN's interests aside for the purpose of pure academic debate. and briefly, as a trustee for this sentence alone, let me point out that ARIN's policies are set by the community and if you think those policies are "a problem" you should join [EMAIL PROTECTED] and also attend ARIN meetings and consider submitting some policy proposals to change them. > The requirements that I see ULA/ULA-C addressing are: > - need for IPv6 space > - need for this space to be globally unique > - need for this space to be easily acquired > - need for this space to be acquired for no cost > - need for the status of this space to be easily identifyable (DFZ or not) others see additional requirements. for example, the need for global WHOIS, global DNS, and global RPKI support for ULA space, so that even in ad-hoc networking environments, "recourse" will be possible against malefactors. as a result of that requirement, a role for the regional internet registries, and a fee level set at the cost recovery level for efficient not-for-profit operations, has been strongly suggested. (don't think that your own requirements aren't relevant or that your description of them is unappreciated, but the resulting specification if any will include a larger set of requirements and features than any one person is likely to have, and is likely to be seen as a compromise by most if not all of us.) > All but the last issue, are trivially manageable by relaxing the existing > requirements in place at the RIRs, for acquiring space. [...] as before, if you think that the existing RIR policies are wrong, there's a mechanism in place in every region for improving those policies. one thing to add at this point: IETF is not where RIR policies are made or changed. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
