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.
Then there is a disconnect between the world of the working group and the operational reality of running a network in my opinion. I just don't see $100/year regardless of size as being a financial barrier to end-sites. When you consider that the average organization these days appears to have at least half a dozen domains, and, domains are usually ~$15/year each, there's just not a big price difference between the domain space and the IP space.
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.
Mandating that registration be performed as a free service in perpituity is not a sustainable model. It is a fictitious concept. However, a service temporarily provided poorly for free can still undercut the same service provided professionally for a reasonable fee to the point of putting the professional organization out of business. This is rarely good for the consumers who later discover that noone is providing the service at any price because the professionals got out of the business unable to compete with the freebies, and, the freebies discovered that it cost money to provide the service and walked away too.
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.
Did they accept any contractual obligation to do it for any particular length of time? Are they identified such that there is accountability to the community and standards for this process that they must follow? There are a lot of things involved in running a registry that are simply not factored into this draft, and, I believe the WG has it's head in the sand when it comes to what it costs to properly run a registry.
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.
Only if there is some mechanism to guarantee good hashing and everyone uses the same or at least similarly good mechanisms for that hashing.
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.
Sure, but, why not just go to unique addresses and be done with it.
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.
Why? Why do you need local ULAs instead of UGAs? What does a ULA do for you that a UGA doesn't?
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.
My point was that the pricing structure isn't a barrier and that ARIN policy does and can be changed in response to community need and input. I think the chances of getting something more flexible with IPv6 than currently available with IPv4 should be pretty good. Especially if the membership is asked "Would you prefer a competing registry for ULAs or to implement a v6 assignment policy that allows organizations to get UGAs to meet that need?"
And then, of course, there's the issue with paying rent for the rest of eternity.
It's not rent, it's a registration fee, and, you pay that for your domains as well. You pay that for your telephone directory listings. It's a very small fee, and, I just don't see that as a meaningful argument. Heck, I'd be happy if I paid as little to register my car as I do to register my IP space each year. I get quite a bit more use out of my IP space then out of having a unique identifier on my car.
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).
No... This is not true. There are a number of ways to route around congress, some legal, some not. + civil disobedience (questionable legality) + Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. + Armed Insurrection (definitely illegal) + Terrorist Act (also illegal) + Use of pre-existing State Law for pre-emption + Renouncement of Citizenship (in some cases) + Recall Petitions + Franked Mail Protests
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.
If you think (a) is not true, then, you really need to put down the crack pipe and look at the fact that most of the world operates on the basis of a capitalist economy, consider the economic factors at work, and, then, consider what ISP is going to refuse to route them when one of those big companies your so fond of dangles dollars in exchange for doing so. (b) is not the case. The RIRs recognize that running a registry costs money. There are operational costs with any entity, and, a global IP registry (or even a regional or local one) is no exception. They also know from experience that there are lots of ways to run a registry badly. That running a registry carries with it a stewardship role and certain other obligations and that all of these cost money to implement and/or scale. They recognize that it's easy to run a registry for a little while without it costing very much, but, that as issues arise and scaling becomes more important, costs go up and solutions that were easy when it's small end up requiring significantly more labor to scale. As a result, the RIRs don't believe that the free ULA business model is sustainable, but, it will undercut their ability to maintain what, so far, is a proven and sustainable model for doing such registrations.
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.
And I still wonder why. Owen