[address-policy-wg] RE: Private address space in IPv4 and IPv6 [was something irrelevantly titled]

poty at iiat.ru wrote:
> The clash is about:
>
> * RIR-space
>    + guaranteed globally unique
>    + *CAN* be routed on the internet
>    - you will have to do paperwork and pay for it 
>
> My point of view: RIR-s space is for routing on the Internet. Not for
> private use! So it MUST be routed on the Internet.

Bad point of view.

You are going to require that people route everything onto the Internet?
Not going to happen. There are a lot of assigned blocks which you will
never ever see on the Internet. And why would they be, it is their
network, thus theirs to route or not, to firewall or not.

> And private networks
> should invent their own rules, personally I will not object that as far
> as it is not affect my access to public part of the Internet!

You mean a separate registry so that when people are "OH I WANT
INTERNETZ" that they simply announce their prefix, which clashes with
real prefixes on the Internet !? That will be a lot of fun.

The sole reason for having registries in the first place is to make sure
these little numbers are globally unique and that they thus don't clash.

Ever tried to merge the network of a couple of banks after they where
acquired by each other and all where using 192.168.0.0/16 in their
internal "totally private" networks?

Uniqueness is what is needed there for that to work.

With IPv6 one has to option of ULA, for IPv4 though, there is not enough
space for such a method, next to that, IPv4 is on the end of its life
anyway. If one is going to deploy a network, use IPv6, especially when
it is going to be "totally private" anyway, then just use ULA and you
are happy.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090529/02d0dcc1/attachment.sig>