nanog mailing list archives
RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
From: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf () tndh net>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:40:50 -0800
Owen DeLong wrote:
I have never been a fan of the registered ULAs, and have argued against the IETF's attempts to state specific monetary values or lifetime practice as a directive to the RIRs; but I am equally bothered by the thought that the operator community would feel a need to fight against something that really doesn't impact them.Perhaps it is because in the perception of the operator community, we do not believe it will not impact us. The reality is that once registered ULAs become available, the next and obvious step will be enterprises that receive them demanding that their providers route them. Economic pressure will override IETF ideal, and, operator impact is the obvious result.
This argument is basically saying that the RIR membership knows it is forcing allocation policies that are counter to the market demand. The only way ULAs could be considered for grey market PI use is due to lack of any alternative mechanism to meet the real customer requirement for independence. The current problem is that the RIR membership has self-selected to a state where they set policies that ensure the end customer has no alternative except to be locked into their provider's address space. Everyone acknowledges that the demand for PI space is real while simultaneously refusing to seriously deal with it (and the re-architecting of fundamental assumptions about the Internet effort of multi6, while serious, is not a short term solution). My to-do list for the next couple of weeks has an item to ask for a BoF at the next IETF on an interim moderately aggregatible PI approach. I cc'd the Internet ADs since this is as good a time as any to start the process. I have a proposal on the table, but I care more about a real solution than I do about that specific approach. At the same time I continue to get comments like: 'Your geographic addressing proposal (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt) is very attractive to us (it's pretty much ideal, really)', so it probably makes a good starting point for discussion. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?], (continued)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 18)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 18)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Adi Linden (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Stephen Sprunk (Nov 19)
- Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?] Owen DeLong (Nov 19)
- ULA and RIR cost-recovery John Curran (Nov 22)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Tony Hain (Nov 23)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Tony Hain (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Steven M. Bellovin (Nov 24)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Tony Hain (Nov 24)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Michael . Dillon (Nov 25)
- Re: geography to get PI in v6 (was: ULA and RIR cost-recovery) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Nov 25)
- RE: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Måns Nilsson (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Daniel Roesen (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Owen DeLong (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Leo Bicknell (Nov 29)
- Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery Pekka Savola (Nov 29)