Thus spake "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com>
I do think, at a high level, that having a registry for non-routable addresses makes sense iff those addresses could be kept that way. There is no reason for RIRs to allocate addresses which would never be used on public networks.
If the addresses are suppose to be unique, then, what is the reason NOT to have the RIRs allocate them?
The RIRs' current business models (charging rent for WHOIS and DNS entries) are not compatible with the needs that the IPv6 WG defined, particularly in the cost and paperwork areas. The odds of success appear to favor a new entity for a new function instead of leeching off an old entity that was designed for a different purpose.
Why set up a separate registry system for these addresses instead of making minor changes to the existing one to accommodate this need? There is no reason to invent the square wheel manufacturing plant when we have a perfectly good round-wheel plant which can be easily retooled for a fraction of the cost.
If ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, LACNIC, or AfriNIC wish to provide the service specified in the draft, they're welcome to volunteer for that function. That some folks have considered ULAs a "threat to ARIN's viability" is an indication that it isn't likely. Again, in the IPv6 WG there were folks who offerred to operate the ULA registry _for free_, and I'm sure many others would be willing to operate it under the initial-cost-only terms in the draft. The RIRs do not appear to be.
Locally-generated ULAs meet a need, like RFC 1918, that the RIRs will never (and probably should never) meet -- cost-free and paperwork-free addresses. Local ULAs also have the benefit that it's easy to explain to customers why ISPs won't route them, which has been cited as a problem with central ULAs.
But locally-generated ULAs aren't ULAs, they're NLAs, so, what's the point of creating this giant address space for people to allocate from willy-nilly.
The odds of collision in a 2^40 space are low enough to consider even locally-generated prefixes unique. For any practical purposes, both ranges are ULAs.
If you want to avoid such collisions as have been the problem with RFC-1918, then, you need an address registry,
That was why a central registry was added to the ULA draft (and later split off into a separate draft): some folks, e.g. you, are apparently not willing to tolerate the 2^-20 chance of collision with a partner. I'll take that over the 100% chance of collision under RFC1918 or Site Locals.
and, let's just accept that this isn't a bad thing any more in IPv6 and get the RIRs allocating such space in a reasonable fashion. I'm perfectly willing to have the RIRs delegate this space from a separate IPv6 block for that purpose, and, the RIRs are capable of doing this. They're already doing it for IPv4 based on 2002-3 and 2003-15.
I'll support unrestricted PI allocations in place of central ULAs, but there is still an identifiable need for local ULAs. 2002-3 only applies to multihomed entities and 2003-15 only applies to Africa. ARIN's existing IPv4 policies explicitly tell organizations to use private address space and not apply for PI space, though 2004-3 may add an exception to allocate PI space if further use of RFC1918 is _impossible_. This is far from the direction you imply. And then, of course, there's the issue with paying rent for the rest of eternity.
Or simply route around the failure via the IETF/IANA, which is what the drafts' authors did. That method has the advantage of not needing to be redone for each of the RIRs, but obviously has other disadvantages.
Hmmm... Then perhaps I should solicit the other people I know who don't like the recent actions of our government and we should route around the damage of the united States Congress? Yes, I'd say it has other rather obvious disadvantages.
Congress has final legal jurisdiction; the only way to route around them is via the Supreme Court. The RIRs are more similar to states, which are bypassed all the time by federal preemption (IETF/IANA do this less often, but it happens). The disadvantages I see here are (a) people think ULAs, of either variety, will end up being routed, and (b) the RIRs don't want to miss out on rental income. Both presume that ULAs will be used for the same purposes that PI space would be used for and that the two are direct substitutes; I assert that neither is true.
At the personal request of an AC member, I will be requesting suggestions on PPML for IPv6 PI space requirements and then submitting a policy proposal. We will see what happens after that. ... FWIW, I will strongly support any proposal to make it easier for organizations to get rational IPv6 allocations of PI space.
Glad to hear it. I still think there's sufficient demand for locally-generated ULAs even if changes in PI policy make centrally-assigned ULAs mostly moot. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking