[ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was: Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83)

There is a much bigger problem than the hassle with RIPE formalities and fees.
It is the size of the Internet table.
If just businesses would get PA addresses (GUA) then all routers on the Internet would need a 30M routing table (30x from now, routers now have 1-4M now)
If subscribers would join this club then the Internet table should grow to 2B. It is impossible even for 2100 year.
Good chances that the world would revert back to IPv4 NAT under such circumstances because IPv6 would just crash.

Stability ("no renumbering") should be achieved by ULA. No choice.
Eduard
-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Leo Vegoda
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 6:04 PM
To: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius at ungleich.ch>
Cc: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net>; ipv6-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg] Free GUA space for community projects [CfP/RFC] (was: Minutes from the IPv6 WG @ RIPE 83)

Hi Nico,

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 6:24 AM Nico Schottelius via ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
>
> Good morning everyone,
>
> a follow up from the RIPE83 IPv6 WG meeting: I had a few talk 
> afterwards and at I got the feeling that "not to ULA, but to GUA" 
> would be the most sustainable way forward.
>
> ## Motivation
>
> The Motivation is:
>
> - with GUA, potential connectivity to the Internet later does not
>   require renumbering
> - with GUA, reverse DNS is easily possible

I don't understand the motivation. What kind of organisation would have so much "not Internet connected" infrastructure that renumbering would be a significant burden but not be able to afford the RIPE NCC's annual membership fee? Looking at the fees published at https://www.ripe.net/publications/ripe-ncc-organisational-documents/charging-schemes
they appear to have gone down over the last decade. Is there a class of organisation that has lots of infrastructure but can't budget for these relatively modest annual fees?

And if the registry or registries you propose are charging so much less, or even free at the point of use, how can they provide a resilient and robust set of registry and DNS services that will last for as long as the users need?

I'd love to get a better understanding of the needs of the anticipated user base and the risks that they need to protect themselves from.

Many thanks,

Leo

-- 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/