This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon May 14 23:36:31 CEST 2007
Hi On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:58:55AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >Do you think this should not be decided by an RFC, but rather as a > >global > >policy through each of the RIRs? > > > I am not sure. I kind of like Tony's (malformed) suggestion that ULA- > C should > come with PI. If the qualifications for ULA-C were the same, or, if > ULA-C was > only available to orgs. that had PI, I think that would be acceptable. I can't really understand the reasoning behind that. What are you trying to achieve, why do you want to restrict handing out ULA-C to only a specific (small) subset of folks out there? I'd take a much simpler approach - install a one-time setup fee, which will prevent folks from just grabbing 10000s of ULA-C prefixes, and then just hand them out to whoever wants some (and pays the handling fee). There's enough /48s in that /8 so that the risk of running out is really low - if there is some mechanism to limit the amount of prefixes a single entity can request. Money works well for that, usually. [..] > Not sure about that. I do support the idea of ULA-Central as intended, > but, I'd have to see a policy or RFC that implemented it in such a way > that I had reasonable confidence it wouldn't become "the easy way to > get PI". If we're going to do that, I'd rather do it by relaxing the > PI policy > than by designating some "nudge nudge wink wink" address space. ULA-C becomes PI the moment folks will accept it in their routing table (and if that is a serious risk, ULA-L could as easily become PI the same way). But why should routing folks do that? I, for one, hereby state that I will not route other folks ULA space on AS5539. Period. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]