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

On May 14, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

> 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 don't want to give ULA-C to people who have an incentive to abuse
it as PI.
> 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).
>
I specifically don't want to achieve the suggested objective and would
strongly oppose such an action.
> 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.
>
I don't care about running out.  I care about less stringent  
standards in ULA
criteria being used to create an end-run on PI policy.
> [..]
>> 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?
>
Hopefully routing folks won't, but, in my experience, $$$ can lead  
routing
folks to ignore what should or shouldn't be done from an internet  
context
and, instead, focus on what makes money.

I agree that ULA-L is a bad idea for all the same reasons.  However,  
there
is nothing which can be done about ULA-L at the RIR policy level.  At
the RIR Policy level, ULA-C can be addressed, at least for the moment.
> I, for one, hereby state that I will not route other folks ULA space
> on AS5539.  Period.
>
Good for you.  If you can get everyone else with an AS to make the
same promise in writing and make that promise binding on their
successors and assigns, then, we might have something.

Owen

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070514/afaaa1a7/attachment.p7s>