Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
andrew.dul at quark.net
Wed Apr 4 16:10:54 UTC 2007
> -------Original Message-------
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] New policy proposal: IPv6 ULA-central
> > De: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2007, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > I'd like the proposal to at least acknowledge that coordination with
> > other organisations will be necessary. I also wonder what happens if
> > the RIRs all get together and create a registry, but the IETF and/or
> > IANA decides to contract the function out to some other party. I also
> > wonder what happens if multiple independent organisations all decide
> > "let's start a ULA registry" but don't know about each other and don't
> > talk to each other.
> There is a starting point here: The IETF work is going to be advanced in
> parallel with the PDP process, but IETF always instructs IANA, and IANA
> always allocate to the RIRs. If that is going to change, the problem here is
> a different one, not just for this policy, I guess ?
I actually think we are approaching this issue from the wrong side. This policy would be implemented based upon an expired Internet-Draft, with no new draft currently being sponsored or even under discussion. Before any RIR should consider this issue the issue needs to be discussed again in the IETF. I'd agree that the work can happen in parallel but we at least need an active draft in the IETF, such as what happened with the 4-byte ASN. I would discourage any RIR from adopting any policy based upon an expired draft.
As far as I know there hasn't really been a lot of discussion in the IETF since the last draft expired. (Although I might not be on the right mailing list.) I haven't seen any new text proposed to update the last draft to deal with the issues that were raised by the RIR community after the initial draft was published. Thanks to Geoff Huston for reposting a summary of the issues after the last round of discussion.
>From Draft Policy Text:
> a. Arguments Supporting the Proposal
> The ³Micro-allocations for Internal Infrastructure² document from ARIN (policy proposal 2006-2, authored by
> Jason Schiller et al., available at http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2006_2.html), document describes the
> need of this kind of additional block for purposes BGP Re-Convergence, Internal Infrastructure Security and why
> locally assigned ULAs (RFC4193) addresses are not appropriate.
It should be pointed out that in the ARIN region we dealt with this issue through policy 2006-2.
> The usage of Global Unicast IPv6 blocks for this type of purposes must be considered as wasteful, especially when > there is already an IANA reserved prefix (FC00::/7) for doing so.
There is already a lot of waste in the current Global Unicast IPv6 allocation scheme so calling a single additional small micro-assignment for an LIR (such as described in ARIN-2006-2) seems like a moot argument to me.
> b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal
> None foreseen.
See former issues that were never resolved...
More information about the RPD