I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this: If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be expired and no longer an active policy. And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure. Ie Standardization, conservation ect... Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6@ietf.org; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft [cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...] JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal infrastructure's.
I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way. Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block. Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those needs. Firewalling is the key here.
I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
For example in RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out. Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. ULA-C as such is useless. Greets, Jeroen
Hi Marla, In fact, when I started to work on this, it was because I realized about the possibility to use ULA-C as the space for the microallocations and talking with different folks they said that it will be possible with ULA-C, but not ULA. I also talked with people from the AC and they considered the point (I was told) to use ULA-C for the microallocations when ULA-C is available. So my view is that probably the microallocations policy should not expire, but instead, be modified to make usage of the ULA-C space instead of global unicast. Regards, Jordi
De: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Responder a: <marla.azinger@frontiercorp.com> Fecha: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:29 -0400 Para: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: ARIN People Posting Mailing List <ppml@arin.net>, <ipv6@ietf.org>, <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Conversación: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft Asunto: RE: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
I think a point here that needs to be looked at is this:
If ULA-C is addressed by IETF and then in turn we end up with RIR's responsible for handing out ULA-C blocks, then those existing policy's such as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure should be expired and no longer an active policy.
And there are different flavors to the debate of why ULA-C would be better than such policy as ARIN's NRPM 6.10.2 Microallocations for Internal Infastructure. Ie Standardization, conservation ect...
Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications
-----Original Message----- From: ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces@arin.net]On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:00 AM To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Cc: ARIN People Posting Mailing List; ipv6@ietf.org; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [ppml] Revising Centrally Assigned ULA draft
[cc'ing RIPE address policy + ARIN PPML where the discussion on this happened, I have not seen any 'operators' who have said the below, if there are they are there and can thus raise their voices because they will see this message; removed the silly spam scoring subject...]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Operators have said that they will not be able to use ULA, but they could use ULA-C, for example for thinks like microallocations for internal infrastructure's.
I really wonder where you got that idea, as I know of no such operator who would ever say that. If there are any, let them bring up their argumentation, please don't come up with "somebody said that" it does not work that way.
Real network operators, especially involved in the RIPE or other RIR's, have more than enough address space from their PA allocations that they can easily receive and they very well know how to use a /48 from that for internal infrastructure as everybody does this. The IPv6 PA policies even describe that a /48 can be used per POP of the owner of the PA block.
Also in the ARIN region any organization can get a /48 PI block for about $100/year, as such these organizations won't be needing this address space either as they can easily take a /64 out of that for those needs. Firewalling is the key here.
I think the policy proposal that I sent to several regions includes text and links to other documents that can clarify this perspective.
For example in RIPE NCC: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-05.html
That is your proposal indeed. No "Operator" has stood behind this and various people from various organizations have clearly asked you and the RIPE NCC to *freeze* this proposal till at least the IETF has worked out.
Anybody needing a "globally unique" block can get either PA or PI space. ULA-C as such is useless.
Greets, Jeroen
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org 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.
participants (2)
-
Azinger, Marla -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ