[ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

> On the other hand, why do we need PI?

There are many reasons. That the prefix is routable on the internet is however not always a requirement by the requester. The RIRs could make that as an option when requesting space. It would surely be easier to get PI space if it didn’t have to be routable (on the internet). There could be different requirements for this.


j

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Roger Jorgensen
Sent: 8. juni 2007 18:44
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: ppml at arin.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; roger at jorgensen.no
Subject: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
>>> Should ULA-C be published in the Whois database? what about reverse DNS
>>> for them, should they be delegated or just reply a NXDOMAIN?
>> let's see.  ula-c should be assigned and tracked by rirs.  they should
>> have whois and in-addr.arpa.  do remind me how they differ from pi
>> space.  i keep forgetting.
> while i'm uncomfortable with randy's tone here, i agree with his concern.
> the difference between pi and ula has been given as "not intended to be
> routed in the DFZ".  this means a pi prefix can be routed privately, as
> for example among cooperating BGP peers at an IX, or between companies
> involved in private relationships such as banking or manufacturing, and
> of course, it will mean that "merge/acquire" no longer implies "renumber
> the RFC1918's on one or both sides".
>
> but since we could never possibly fit all of ipv6 into the DFZ, and since
> the cost and availability of pi is theoretically manageable by us (the RIR
> system) to make sure everybody who needs it can get and can afford it, i
> fail to see the virtue of making some of it cheaper and worth less.

Well, I was really in favour of ULA-C but now given some time and after 
listning to all of the arguments, and maybe most important I realized one 
huge thing that ULA-C maybe can't provide, DNS, which leave it useless for 
our usage.

Without reverse DNS possibility ULA-C is useless.

On the other hand, why do we need PI? What we need is a policy that make 
sure those that could gain from ULA-C can get public routable IP space, 
and then they can themself decide if they want to route it or not. It's 
possible and upto them.


If we have to call it PI then so be it... I really dislike the name but I 
can live with it.



-- 

------------------------------
Roger Jorgensen              | - ROJO9-RIPE  - RJ85P-NORID
roger at jorgensen.no           | - IPv6 is The Key!
-------------------------------------------------------