[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

Owen DeLong wrote:
> ......
> > If you prefer the RIR process, would you be in favor of a global
> > policy
> > submitted to ARIN that had the provisions of the expired ULA-central
> > draft, with the modification of removing "cental authority" and
> > clearly
> > designating how IANA should divide the space among the existing RIRs?
> >
> 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.

The 'central authority' was not intended to preclude the RIR's, just not
impose something upon them they didn't want. 

The RIR's are member organizations that don't sell or lease address space,
they manage a resource on behalf of the members. If you want long term
membership to grow and/or sustain the costs of running the organization,
then you need to offer a service that is attractive. ULA-C space is an
attractive resource to many organizations that have been burned on 1918
mergers. If you don't want that to become an alternate PI space, then
recognize that PI space is another attractive resource that would justify
sustaining membership. Most of the potential members that would be
interested in one of those would also be interested in the other, so create
a policy that automatically allocates both to reduce internal costs for
interacting with the paperwork & database. 

The noise about PI blowing out the routing system is just that, -noise-. If
all ~20k AS entities came and demanded PI space we would have a whopping 20k
routing entries in the IPv6 DFZ BGP mesh. At 1/10th the IPv4 table, and
basically stable vs. growing at a compound rate, that is not even
noticeable. 

Tony