Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
gih at apnic.net
Sun Apr 1 21:55:27 UTC 2007
At 05:39 AM 2/04/2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>This is a new policy proposal, just to make sure to avoid any confusion: It
>is NOT related with the IPv6 PI.
>As discussed with the NRO, I'm submitting this proposal to all the RIRs.
>Please, read the text and make sure to ask any questions that you may have.
When this was under consideration within the IETF some years back I performed
an evaluation of the draft from the perspective of the RIRs as a
of this service. In reading through this proposal these considerations appear
to remain relevant today, and it may be useful to consider these issues when
considering the operational aspects of provision of such a registry service.
The evaluation report included the following considerations:
- the 'nature' of the distribution function for this part of the
IPv6 address appears to be an allocation to be undertaken in
perpetuity. It is possible to interpret this allocation in terms
comparable to some form of 'freehold property' given that the
self-allocation via the central registry gives the entity
exclusive unqualified right of access without any form of
expiration or renewal of the original allocation.
Current RIR allocations of unicast public address space are
undertaken under conditions that are broadly consistent with a non-
It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of choice
by the client as the time of assignment, and that pricing for this
address assignment reflect the different cost structure of secure
maintenance of assignment records for a fixed period vs costs for
this record maintenance to be undertaken in perpetuity.
- it is unclear whether the privacy of the assignee is intended to
absolute or under what circumstances the central registry operator
would divulge this information and to whom. It was noted that all
information held by the RIR is not covered by any binding
privilege. It is the case that such RIR-held information is
discoverable by others using legal means under certain
circumstances. Open questions include:
Would anyone be able to ask whether a specific prefix was
allocated or not?
Would a holder be able to 'recover' their prefix from the
Could a holder request the registry to expose their holding to a
specific third party?
Could the privacy requirement be changed at a later date?
Would any future changes to the privacy requirement (or any
other characteristics of these addresses) be a policy matter to
be determined within the addressing community, or would any
changes to the characteristics of this space remain solely
within the purview of the IETF?
- Permanence of allocation. Should there be a capability for an
assignee to voluntarily return an allocation? How can the assignee
and the returnee be matched? If the allocation is not public
knowledge how can a return be effected? Should these allocations be
permanent or of some fixed term with a periodic renewal option?
- Distribution functions. Should there be some form of 'wholesale'
form of bulk access to this registry, to allow, for example, a
manufacturer to place pre-paid prefixes into manufactured devices?
If not, could this form of use of the central registry services be
supported using mechanisms described in the current proposal?
- Associated information and pointers. The proposal is silent on reverse
DNS for these prefixes. Perhaps the final version of this document
could explicitly say that this requires private DNS (two- faced DNS)
deployment and that placing these prefixes in the ip6.arpa zone is not
to be supported. Or should such reverse DNS delegation be allowed?
After all these global IDs are unique and in and of itself putting
them in the public DNS is not going to harm the DNS. Of course the
random nature of these assignments has the potential to, over time,
create an extremely large flat DNS zone. This may have implications in
terms of signing the zone with DNSSEC of course. Some guidance the
preferred approach of populating the DNS reverse zones would be
preferred, if reverse DNS is to be supported for these addresses. If
this reverse DNS is to be allowed, does this compromise the private
nature of the assignment? The proposal is also silent on WHOIS entries.
It appears that there is an explicit privacy issue where that
precludes any inclusion in the WHOIS databases, but an explicit
statement to this effect in a final version of this document would be
preferred. It is probable that inclusion in the public DNS, whois
information and the privacy of these assignments are related matters.
- Routability of these prefixes. The RIRs maintain that they take no
position on the routeability of prefixes that they assign. It would
appear that this position extends to this central registry managed
site local prefix.
- There is no doubt that there would be some effort expended on the part
of the RIRs to implement this registry operation. Pricing for the
service may need to be determined within the parameters of a cost
recovery function for operation of the function distinct from the
costs of other RIR functions, and within the parameters of the
anticipated costs of secure maintenance of records in perpetuity.
More information about the RPD