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

Gert Doering wrote:
> ...
> 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).

A registration fee is a one-time event. RIR membership is ongoing and
provides a way to know what is active. I doubt there would ever be need to
reclaim/reuse any of the allocations, but this is an attractive resource,
use it as such to provide a reason to be an RIR member.

> ...
> 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?

PI will exist in whatever form it has to. If that means punching holes in PA
space, then it will be that. Rather than trying to prevent the unpreventable
through a disassociated policy, grab it and manage it. Create PI that is
managed. If that exists in an easy to get form, the ULA-C discussion is moot
because it will cost more to convince an ISP to route it than to just get
recognized PI space.

> 
> I, for one, hereby state that I will not route other folks ULA space
> on AS5539.  Period.
> 

That is a fine position to take, but that is only one of ~20k AS's. Create a
managed PI space, & ULA-C space, then the intended state will be easy for
ISPs to enforce. Without both, unmanaged versions of both will be created
and create confusion down the road. 

Tony