[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon May 14 23:36:31 CEST 2007
Hi On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:58:55AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >Do you think this should not be decided by an RFC, but rather as a > >global > >policy through each of the RIRs? > > > I am not sure. I kind of like Tony's (malformed) suggestion that ULA- > C should > come with PI. If the qualifications for ULA-C were the same, or, if > ULA-C was > only available to orgs. that had PI, I think that would be acceptable. I can't really understand the reasoning behind that. What are you trying to achieve, why do you want to restrict handing out ULA-C to only a specific (small) subset of folks out there? I'd take a much simpler approach - install a one-time setup fee, which will prevent folks from just grabbing 10000s of ULA-C prefixes, and then just hand them out to whoever wants some (and pays the handling fee). There's enough /48s in that /8 so that the risk of running out is really low - if there is some mechanism to limit the amount of prefixes a single entity can request. Money works well for that, usually. [..] > Not sure about that. I do support the idea of ULA-Central as intended, > but, I'd have to see a policy or RFC that implemented it in such a way > that I had reasonable confidence it wouldn't become "the easy way to > get PI". If we're going to do that, I'd rather do it by relaxing the > PI policy > than by designating some "nudge nudge wink wink" address space. ULA-C becomes PI the moment folks will accept it in their routing table (and if that is a serious risk, ULA-L could as easily become PI the same way). But why should routing folks do that? I, for one, hereby state that I will not route other folks ULA space on AS5539. Period. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 113403 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]