North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery

  • From: Pekka Savola
  • Date: Mon Nov 29 14:37:01 2004

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote:
#1 Set aside a block for "local" use a-la RFC1918.  This set aside
  should make no recommendations about how the space is subdivided
  for used for these local purposes.
FWIW, site-locals were dropped (among others) due to concerns about sufficient guarantee of uniqueness. ULA started by having only a local generation mechanism, no central allocation at all. Would that allay your concerns?

#3 Drop the absolutely stupid notion that there should be no PI space.
  There will be PI space, either by people using ULA for that purposes,
  or by the RIR's changing this stupidity after they get ahold of it.
I think we all know there's going to be _some_ form of PI space. Whether that's realized by making the policies weaker, by end-sites lying in their address applications, or end-sites providing interesting interpretation for "other organizations", or a number of different mechanisms, the fact is that some form of PI addressing is going to be there. The question just is, what kind, how much of it, and to whom it's available.

#4 Drop the absolutely stupid notion that "one size fits all".  A /32
  for everyone makes no sense.  VLSM was a good idea.
Below.

#5 Stay out of the allocation details.  The RIR's have been allocating
  addresses for years.  The RIR's have people, from small to large
  ISP's and everything inbetween solving real world allocation
  problems every day.  The history tells us is the policy will
  change over time.  History also tells us being too liberal early on
  can never be "fixed".  The RIR's will change policy as time goes
  on to fit the changing IPv6 world.  Let them deal with the policy
  on a going forward basis.
The history also tells us that being too stingy when there is no need to be stingy will result in useless fragmentation of the addressing, and therefore results in the fragmentation of routing advertisements.

A minimum of /32 per ISP IMHO makes very much sense, because that's so small amount that we aren't going to run out. On the other hand, I agree that one size does not fit all, and larger blocks will also need to be provided. Oops, they already have!

--
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings