Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central

Wed Apr 4 09:04:11 UTC 2007

Hi Alan,

I understand your point, but in my opinion, policies should not enter into
details of how they become actually implemented from an operational

This is also what I've heard several times from the staff en many RIRs.

For example, it may be the case that the RIRs (those where the policy get
approved by the membership) may decide (via the NRO or other means), to
implement a single central register, instead of different registries.

One more possibility could be to breakdown the ULA-central prefix in several
smaller chunks to be allocated by IANA to each RIR.

Again, operational details should be left on the hands of the RIRs
(otherwise, we should do the same in all the policies, define all the
operation instead of trusting the RIR staff capabilities).


> De: Alan Barrett <apb at>
> Responder a: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
> Fecha: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:29:57 +0200
> Para: AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at>
> Asunto: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>   Policy Proposal Name:   IPv6 ULA-central
>>   Author:     Jordi Palet Martinez, Consulintel
>>   Proposal Version:   1.0
>>   Submission Date:   1st April 2007
> The whole point of centrally-assigned unique local addresses is to
> get addresses that are guaranteed to be globally unique (as opposed
> to locally-assigned unique local addresses, which are generated in a
> way that is likely to be unique, but not guaranteed to be unique).
> The expired draft draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt (available from
> <>) talks about
> an escrow function to ensure uniqueness.
> It seems to me that a "central" ULA registry operated by AfriNIC
> (presumably in parallel with other similar registries operated by
> other RIRs) would not satisfy the requirement for guaranteed global
> uniqueness.  There would be a possibility of collisions in the
> assignments made by different registries, unless there was a way of
> performing some kind of cross-registry uniqueness check.  I think that
> a realistic proposal to establish a central ULA registry should address
> the mechanism for performing the uniqueness checks.  The proposal on the
> table does not do so.
> I'd also like to see some consideration of mechanisms to prevent
> hoarding of addresses.
> --apb (Alan Barrett)
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

The IPv6 Portal:

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

More information about the RPD mailing list