[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [email@example.com: [arin-announce] ARIN Board Advises Internet Community on Migration to IPv6]
On May 21, 2007, at 11:40 AM, bill fumerola wrote:
that angry mob you see in the distance is the arin-ppml mailing
list heading over to v6ops to discuss ULA-central.
Maybe you could fill me in on why it is an "angry" mob? v6ops has not
been asked to be involved in the discussion, and has not prevented it
from happening. v6ops didn't define the ULA - ipng did. To my
knowledge, the operational community has not even seen fit to post
their proposal where v6ops can see it, notwithstanding the fact that
I have invited them to do so and to use v6ops@ to discuss it. Why
would they be angry with us?
If you're suggesting that at the coming IETF it might be worthwhile
to entertain the proposal, given an internet draft I would be willing
to see that happen.
Speaking strictly for myself, I would ask a few questions. One is why
one wants to have central allocation of a local address. Not that I
am opposed to having it (RFC 4193 clearly sets aside part of the
address space for such), but I would like to understand the argument.
Related is how a centrally-managed unique global address differs from
a centrally-managed unique local address; they both look centrally-
managed and unique to me. If the argument is that BGP will not
advertise and will not accept a peer's advertisement of a ULA, that
is true if and only if the appropriate filters are in place, so the
locality of the address seems pretty similar. One still needs to have
correct filters. The third is why this needs to be a managed space
per se. If the desire is for a space that can be used within an ISP
network and is guaranteed to not overlap that of any routing peer,
placing the 32 bit AS number into the upper bits of the "Global ID"
gives each provider a /40 to play with, with no effort on the IANA's
part. Why not just do so?