Re: ULA-C (Was: Re: IPv6 will never fly: ARIN continues to kill it)

Tony Hain wrote:
[..]
> The people that are fighting having ULA-C are the same ones that don't want
> PI, and they are trying to force ULA-C == PI so they can turn that argument
> around and say 'we told you PI was a bad idea' when there is no way to
> filter out what would have been ULA-C. If you really believe there is going
> to be a routing system problem, then you absolutely have to support ULA-C
> because it is the only way to enforce keeping private space private.
I don't think ULA-C makes sense. We have a RIR system in place. These
RIRs are supposed to provide address space for people/organizations who
can justify a need for that address space. Clearly everybody does want
this address space to be unique and a lot of people for various reasons
(statistics, contact info, who it belongs to, which country, etc) want
to have at least an entry somewhere in a database that is publicly
available.

As at least ARIN, APNIC and AfriNIC have policies in place now, which
break the "global policy" that once existed, to provide /48's and upward
to individual sites. These sites might or might not be (completely)
connected to the Internet, there is no requirement anywhere to do so.

As such, there is already a perfect method of getting globally unique
and registered address space. As such, there is no need for ULA-C.

Which is good, as any address space that gets marked as 'special' will
be unusable because some people won't ever update filters, which is
their problem of course, but it will hurt others.

As history has shown that one day or another you will want to connect to
the Internet, having those blocks simply come from the RIRs is the
perfect way to do it.

As for the routing system problem, simple Economics will resolve that.
Either Transit Providers will stop accepting certain sized prefixes or
they will nicely start charging serious amounts of cash for the routing
slots they occupy.

In the mean time the great people working on the ram(_at_)iab list will find
a great method of avoiding that problem. We are at <900 prefixes in IPv6
and I really don't see it hitting 100k of them any time soon. When it
does, then we know that we might need to hurry up a bit. But as the IPv4
tables are already at 230k and are doing fine, I think we can have quite
a couple of quiet years before that will become a serious issue,
especially when ISPs can always filter if they want.

Checking the Looking Glass of GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/) it
shows also that quite some ISP's are already attempting de-aggregation
of their /32's and even the /20's they have received. Still the basic
premise is that they should only be announcing that single prefix and
most likely they only connect to you at one/two common points anyway and
you won't need their more specifics. As such you can filter on those
borders to avoid those few routes.

Greets,
 Jeroen

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf