Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 15-Mar-21 05:23, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> 
> Good evening,
> 
> David Farmer <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> I assumed Nico was talking about some version of Community Networking.
>>
>> https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/community-networks/
>> or;
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network
> 
> That is correct. Or rather well known in our region:
> https://freifunk.net/, mostly based on a modified OpenWrt version.
> 
>> It is fairly common for Community Networks, especially wireless ones to use
>> RFC 1918 for IPv4 and ULA for IPv6, and interconnect with other Community
>> Networks over tunnels on donated ISP connectivity from participants or
>> others.
> 
> ULA is very dominant in these networks and it's probably also one of the
> sources we got the first requests for establishing the ULA registry.

I can only repeat: if you want action from the IETF (and remember that
on certain matters iesg@ietf can give instructions to the IANA), the case
has to be made via an I-D. Facts, numbers, use case. Getting an RFC that
sets up a first-come first-served ULA-C system isn't an impossible dream,
but it is work. That would open up the entire fc00::/8 space.

     Brian

>> ARIN has a definition and policy for Community Networks again allow for /40
>> allocations.
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-11-community-network
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-9-community-network-allocations
> 
> That is actually a *much* better approach than using ULA. As mentioned
> before, the $250 tag is significantly better than 4 digit+, but could
> still be improved. [see next mail]
> 
> 
> --
> Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch
>