[address-policy-wg] RE: [ppml] A registered ULA policy proposal outline

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 at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Scott Leibrand
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:52 PM
To: ppml at arin.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
(PPML at arin.net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml