Subject: IPv6 WG Consensus call: draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:21:24 -0400

IPv6 WG,
      This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt.  At this time the chairs believe it
is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-assigned
ULA specification (which is currently in the RFC Editor's Queue)
before continuing work on the centrally-allocated mechanism.

      The chairs would like to solicit input from WG members on this
approach.  Please state your support or disagreement with this
approach.  Those who disagree, please state rationale for wanting
to continue this work at this time.

Regards,
Brian & Bob
IPv6 WG co-chairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:03:37 +0200

I agree that this is the best approach right now.

    Brian C

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:39:25 -0500

Thus spake "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
> to continue this work at this time.

Agreed.

I also believe that we should be watching the IPv6 PI policy proposal at
ARIN et al; if the ARIN proposal is approved (and other RIRs follow suit), I
see little reason to continue work on centrally-assigned ULAs.

S

Stephen Sprunk        "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723           people.  Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS         smart people who disagree with them."  --Aaron Sorkin

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:18:43 +0930

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:21:24 -0400

> to continue this work at this time.

I agree with this approach.

I'd be interested to know if there is a somewhat formal process for
collecting or just documenting the data about this operational
experience. Any (offlist if necessary) pointers or references would be
appreciated.

Regards,
Mark.

-- 

    The Internet's nature is peer to peer.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:52:26 +0100

> see little reason to continue work on centrally-assigned ULAs.

I disagree.  The ARIN proposal seems to be 'PI for any ASN holder' in which
case

a) this will limit who gets the PI space to large organisations
b) be limited by the 16-bit ASN space (and may create a land rush)
c) be useless to the small end site that wants to use unique ULAs

But I may have misunderstood the ARIN proposal :)

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:13:42 +0100

For info, the copy of the ARIN proposal I have seen says:

"   6.11 Assignments to End-sites with Autonomous System Numbers

     Any  end-site which meets the current criteria for assignment of an
     autonomous  system  number  (ASN)  shall  also qualify for one IPv6
     prefix  assignment  of  the  minimum  size justified under the ARIN
     guidelines  for  assignment by an LIR. If the organization grows to
     require more space, it will not be entitled to an additional block,
     but  rather  may obtain a new, replacement block of sufficient size
     to  meet  its needs in exchange for making the commitment to return
     its existing block within 24 months, so that it may be reassigned."

Presumably if the end-site wishes to route the /32(?) globally as PI then
it is probably likely to need an ASN anyway?   

But it could be a /48, as per the IX allocations, presumably?

Tim

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 09:26:09 +0100

> But I may have misunderstood the ARIN proposal :)

Following up to myself, the proposal in fact says 'sites who could qualify 
for an ASN'.   But that does limit who could use this source for PI.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:13:23 +0200

> for an ASN'.   But that does limit who could use this source for PI.

Well yes, but ULAs aren't actually PI space anyway (in the sense of
routeable PI space), so I think this is all a bit orthogonal to
the proposal to simply watch what happens with locally assigned ULAs.

    Brian

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 05:24:48 -0500

Thus spake "Tim Chown" <[email-masked]>
> > I also believe that we should be watching the IPv6 PI policy
> > proposal at ARIN et al; if the ARIN proposal is approved (and
> > other RIRs follow suit), I see little reason to continue work on
> > centrally-assigned ULAs.
>
> I disagree.  The ARIN proposal seems to be 'PI for any ASN holder'
> in which case
>

Not true.  The requirements for an ASN are actually rather loose -- nearly
anyone who would see a benefit from having PI space can get an ASN.  The
size of the organization is irrelevant.

> b) be limited by the 16-bit ASN space (and may create a land rush)

Technically, anyone who _qualifies_ for an ASN can get a PI block under this
2005-1, even if they don't actually have an ASN.

The proposal specifically addresses concerns about a land grab.  There is a
reasonable concern about creating "SWAMPv6", but IMHO that is necessary
until IPv6 hits critical mass.

> But I may have misunderstood the ARIN proposal :)

If I remember the discussion correctly, CA ULAs were proposed because it was
perceived that getting IPv6 PI space was nearly impossible (and costly) and
end sites with a nontrivial number of connections to other end sites could
not rely on LA ULAs being sufficiently unique.

2005-1 was proposed as a result of that perception, and it resolves the
first half of the above.  There's still a debate about the cost and
permanence of PI space vs. CA ULAs, but there has also been significant
concern from operators that CA ULAs would end up being routed like PI space.
IMHO, we should wait until we have experience with IPv6 PI space (assuming
it's approved) and LA ULAs to see if there is still enough demand for CA
ULAs to justify the risks.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:31:19 -0400

All,
      Based on the list discussion and comments received privately,
the chairs see a strong consensus forming on the centrally-
allocated ULA document.  At this time, we will not continue work
on this draft.  We will monitor the use and issues raised with the
locally-assigned ULAs.  If issues warrant, the working group can
re-visit the central-ULA draft in the future.

      The chairs would like to thank all of those who offered their
thoughts and opinions on the topic.

Regards,
Brian & Bob
IPv6 WG co-chairs