Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested

Wed Nov 10 21:37:31 UTC 2004

Ray Plzak wrote:
> ... This is a valuable discussion but to a large extent
> the efforts can be considered as a non input into the working group as the
> discussion is not on their mail list.  The IETF works best when people
> directly contribute to the discussion and consensus building process.  I
> encourage you to move this discussion to the working group mail list and
> if
> you are at the IETF to attend the IPv6 Working Group at 9 AM, Thursday
> morning in the Georgetown room.  The session is also multicast.

I second Ray's comments about participation here. At the same time as you
read and form your opinions, make sure you take off your blinders about how
things were done in the good old days. Many current network deployments are
work-arounds to the limitations of existing technology. There are
opportunities for different configurations going forward that achieve the
real goals. To that end, you should also read and comment on:
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt

Another point to consider is that most of the people that would be using the
ULA space are NOT service providers. As such you should keep in mind that
the target user's problem is not the same as most of the membership of this
list, so the tools and their use are not the same. While everyone could
request space from a provider or Arin for private use, having a clean single
well-known bogon filter of FC00/7 makes everyone's life much simpler. Since
most of the problems in the operational world are derived from unnecessary
complexity, having a simple well understood filter should lead us to a more
stable network. Yes we know people leak 1918 today and ULAs don't prevent
leaks, but leaks of space that was not intended to be globally routed will
be even more common if they are non-contiguous random pieces from each
customer. 

Tony