[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)

Jordi,

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:23:16PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 
> No, it is a different thing (local/RFC4193 vs. central).
> 
> This draft (ula-central-01) is already being updated.

I really looks like RFC 4193 is ula-central-01 with the central
registry taken out. 

I mention this because the central registry must have been taken
out for a reason, and I think it would be easier if we knew those
reasons rather than having to guess at them.

> The policy proposes to act as one of the central (consider one of
> the draft options "central but distributed in several entities",
> take that as one or several RIRs) registries.
> 
> I need to clarify that this is something that has been consulted for
> months with the NRO and the NRO answer was: "fine, but go to each
> region with a policy proposal, otherwise we can't do it".

Right, so the idea is that the NRO will run a registry, and that the
RIRs will act as registrars for this. Hopefully the policies will be
similar in each region.

And the proposal that these addresses will be issued directly by the
RIPE NCC to end users?

I think this is interesting, but if that is the idea, then the whole
structure (NRO->RIR->end users) seems really complicated. There are
about 1 trillion of these /48's. I think a much better idea would be
for the NRO to set up a web page where you type in your credit card
number and for 5 euros (or 10 or 20 or whatever) you get a /48. (Not
an original idea of mine, but I can't remember who suggested it to
me.)

If you don't want to spend the 5 euros (or 10 or 20 or whatever), you
can always use a random /48 from RFC 4193.

If the NRO demands that this be a policy action within each region,
there's no special reason the NRO has to be involved, is there? Anyone
with a server can run this.

--
Shane