who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

Fri Nov 19 20:26:56 UTC 2004

Thus spake "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
> > I do think, at a high level, that having a registry for non-routable
> > addresses makes sense iff those addresses could be kept that way.  There
> > is no reason for RIRs to allocate addresses which would never be used on
> > public networks.
>
> If the addresses are suppose to be unique, then, what is the reason NOT to
> have the RIRs allocate them?

The RIRs' current business models (charging rent for WHOIS and DNS entries) 
are not compatible with the needs that the IPv6 WG defined, particularly in 
the cost and paperwork areas.  The odds of success appear to favor a new 
entity for a new function instead of leeching off an old entity that was 
designed for a different purpose.

> Why set up a separate registry system for
> these addresses instead of making minor changes to the existing one to
> accommodate this need?  There is no reason to invent the square wheel
> manufacturing plant when we have a perfectly good round-wheel plant which
> can be easily retooled for a fraction of the cost.

If ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, or AfriNIC wish to provide the service 
specified in the draft, they're welcome to volunteer for that function. 
That some folks have considered ULAs a "threat to ARIN's viability" is an 
indication that it isn't likely.

Again, in the IPv6 WG there were folks who offerred to operate the ULA 
registry _for free_, and I'm sure many others would be willing to operate it 
under the initial-cost-only terms in the draft.  The RIRs do not appear to 
be.

> > Locally-generated ULAs meet a need, like RFC 1918, that the RIRs will
> > never (and probably should never) meet -- cost-free and paperwork-free
> > addresses. Local ULAs also have the benefit that it's easy to explain to
> > customers why ISPs won't route them, which has been cited as a problem
> > with central ULAs.
>
> But locally-generated ULAs aren't ULAs, they're NLAs, so, what's the
> point of creating this giant address space for people to allocate from
> willy-nilly.

The odds of collision in a 2^40 space are low enough to consider even 
locally-generated prefixes unique.  For any practical purposes, both ranges 
are ULAs.

> If you want to avoid such collisions as have been the problem with
> RFC-1918, then, you need an address registry,

That was why a central registry was added to the ULA draft (and later split 
off into a separate draft): some folks, e.g. you, are apparently not willing 
to tolerate the 2^-20 chance of collision with a partner.  I'll take that 
over the 100% chance of collision under RFC1918 or Site Locals.

> and, let's just accept that this isn't a bad thing any more in IPv6 and
> get the RIRs allocating such space in a reasonable fashion.  I'm
> perfectly willing to have the RIRs delegate this space from a separate
> IPv6 block for that purpose, and, the RIRs are capable of doing this.
> They're already doing it for IPv4 based on 2002-3 and 2003-15.

I'll support unrestricted PI allocations in place of central ULAs, but there 
is still an identifiable need for local ULAs.

2002-3 only applies to multihomed entities and 2003-15 only applies to 
Africa.  ARIN's existing IPv4 policies explicitly tell organizations to use 
private address space and not apply for PI space, though 2004-3 may add an 
exception to allocate PI space if further use of RFC1918 is _impossible_. 
This is far from the direction you imply.

And then, of course, there's the issue with paying rent for the rest of 
eternity.

> > Or simply route around the failure via the IETF/IANA, which is what the
> > drafts' authors did.  That method has the advantage of not needing to be
> > redone for each of the RIRs, but obviously has other disadvantages.
>
> Hmmm... Then perhaps I should solicit the other people I know who don't
> like the recent actions of our government and we should route around the
> damage of the united States Congress?  Yes, I'd say it has other rather
> obvious disadvantages.

Congress has final legal jurisdiction; the only way to route around them is 
via the Supreme Court.  The RIRs are more similar to states, which are 
bypassed all the time by federal preemption (IETF/IANA do this less often, 
but it happens).

The disadvantages I see here are (a) people think ULAs, of either variety, 
will end up being routed, and (b) the RIRs don't want to miss out on rental 
income.  Both presume that ULAs will be used for the same purposes that PI 
space would be used for and that the two are direct substitutes; I assert 
that neither is true.

> > At the personal request of an AC member, I will be requesting 
> > suggestions
> > on PPML for IPv6 PI space requirements and then submitting a policy
> > proposal. We will see what happens after that.
...
> FWIW, I will strongly support any proposal to make it easier for
> organizations to get rational IPv6 allocations of PI space.

Glad to hear it.

I still think there's sufficient demand for locally-generated ULAs even if 
changes in PI policy make centrally-assigned ULAs mostly moot.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking 