Hello I have been reading all the ULA emails and decided
some of you might be interested to know the following:
A small group of people (including Jason Schiller, Thomas
Narten,
Marla Azinger, Bob Hinden, Geoff Huston) have been
discussing this
very subject and what actions we need to pursue in order to
evolve
from circular conversations.
Here is what action we are taking:
Bob Hinden is going to revise the expired Centralized ULA
Internet
Draft, updating it based on input received from various
forum
discussions. We plan to submit this draft to the v6ops WG
in time for
the Chicago IETF with a goal of having it published as an
RFC. Part
of the new wording will be to clarify the ULA ID properties
needed to
make it work but leave out the details of how to achieve
this to the
RIR's. So yes, this document will "request" RIR
involvment. And
if/when approved, the document would task IANA with
disseminating the
ULA Addresses to the RIR's for assignment.
We believe significant changes have occured in the last two
years that
make ULA a reasonable and acceptable requirement and that to
make it
work it needs the cooperation of IANA, IETF and RIR's. We
are working
to bridge this gap with a revised proposal that will
(hopefully!) get
us out of the circular discussions.
Thank you for your time
Marla Azinger
Frontier Communications
-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces arin.net [mailto:ppml-bouncesarin.net]On Behalf Of
Scott Leibrand
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:52 PM
To: ppmlarin.net
Subject: [ppml] A registered ULA policy proposal outline
So after spending way too much time reading way too many
messages about
ULA-central, I think an actual policy proposal is needed to
blow away
the smoke and see whether the wood is actually dry enough to
be useful
for cooking marshmallows.
My reading of the PPML discussion to date leads me to the
following
conclusions:
* There are a number of organizations who would prefer
to be able to
acquire some form of registered unique local IPv6
addresses.
* There are a number of arguments against a single
central ULA
registry centering around the desire to avoid
"registry shopping."
* For organizations in the ARIN region, there is
consensus that
organizations desiring to announce directly assigned
space to
transit providers should acquire space under ARIN's PI
policy.
* There are a number of organizations in the ARIN region
who wish to
acquire some form of registered ULAs for private,
not-publicly-routed use (in addition to either PI or
PA space).
* Some people participating in the ARIN public policy
process are
uncomfortable asking ARIN to create a ULA registry
without an RFC
defining their various aspects, such as how registered
ULAs should
be allocated from IANA to the RIRs, how registered
ULAs are
intended to be used, etc.
* Some people participating in the IETF process are (or
have been)
uncomfortable moving forward the existing ULA-central
draft due to
a perception of opposition at the RIRs. It is unclear
to me
whether this is largely historical (from before ARIN
passed its PI
policy) or whether it persists.
If people who believe registered ULAs would meet a currently
unmet need
would like to move toward an ARIN ULA registry, I believe
they should
draft a policy something along the following lines, and then
work to
determine whether the particulars of the policy, and the
idea as a
whole, enjoy support among interested participants of the
public policy
process. (As before, I think a poll along the lines of
Andrew Dul's
2005-1 IPv6 PI poll would be helpful.)
So without further ado, here's a draft outline of a possible
registered
ULA policy proposal:
* ARIN representatives should work with the IETF to help
adopt an
RFC defining the particulars of a registration
function for Unique
Local IPv6 Addresses (ULAs). A suitable RFC might
define a range
of IPv6 space for IANA to allocate to participating
RIRs, which
would then assign blocks to organizations. The RFC
might also
recommend that ULAs SHOULD NOT be announced to or
accepted by
Internet transit providers.
* Upon adoption of such an RFC, ARIN should create a
registry to
assign registered Unique Local IPv6 Addresses
(registered ULAs).
The registry should assign a unique netblock to each
registrant,
should track and provide public information about
such
registrations through directory services like whois,
and should
provide reverse DNS delegation (ip6.arpa).
* Upon creation of a registered ULA registry, ARIN
should begin
accepting applications for registered ULA netblocks.
Such
netblocks should be assigned to any organization in
the ARIN
region requiring registered ULAs for internal
addressing
purposes. ARIN should help ensure applicants are
aware that ULAs
are not intended to be routable (referencing the RFC),
and should
direct applicants to apply under the IPv6 PI policy or
acquire
space from their ISP(s) if they desire routable
space.
As I have no personal interest in registered ULAs (just a
general
interest in the good of the Internet community, and a desire
to improve
the signal to noise ratio of my ppml folder), I'm probably
not the right
person to actually write a registered ULA policy proposal.
If there's
support for the idea, I hope someone with an interested in
registered
ULAs can take the outline above, and the feedback it will
inevitably
generate, and draft a policy proposal.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List
(PPMLarin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://li
sts.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
|