[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 08:19:11AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> If (non-globally routed) PI is the answer to the ULA-C question, is
> there going to be enough (non-globally routed) PI so that I can get a
> (non-globally routed) PI allocation for my home, at a small charge for
> the guaranteed uniqueness e.g. US$10 per annum ? How about my Personal
> Area Network that interconnects my mobile phone, portable music player
> and pedometer in my shoes. Will there be enough (non-globally routed)
> PI that everybody on the planet who might end up having that sort of
> PAN can get a (non-globally routed) PI address allocation, should they
> want one ? How about if they want separate allocations for both their
> PAN and their home network.
> 
> If the answer is no, then (non-globally routed) PI it isn't solving the
> ULA/ULA-C problem.

Something to consider for the folks that reject ULA-C because "PI would
do the job".

There is quite a number of people out there that are quite sceptic about
PI space - and really do not want to make access to PI space easy and
convenient.  Consider me one of those - globally routed PI space puts
burden on everybody else, so this should be well-considered, and putting
some hurdles in people's way might make them reconsider whether they really
want PI or not.

The "non-routed globally unique address thing", however it is called, 
should be *very very very* easy to get - I would prefer to see a one-up
fee here, but if there is registry service tacked to it, I could live
with a small(!) yearly fee.

This is where I see the benefit of ULA-C - address space that is unique,
and doesn't need artificial obstacles to keep the number of occurances 
in the routing system low.


(Of course this whole debate would immediately stop if the *routing crowd*
would stop to offload their problems to address policy.  From a pure
address policy point of view, I could care less if folks get "a /48" from
PA, PI, or ULA space - it's address consumption, and the type of address
doesn't matter anything.  Routing is hurt, but I see no resonable way 
(today) to put a global tax on each advertised prefix - which would achieve
the "convenience" <-> "global cost" balancing...)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279