Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Nick Hilliard <> Wed, 20 January 2021 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196D73A1498 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LSbUSmMwaFn5 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60BDF3A1497 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 12:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from crumpet.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 10KKwge1014437 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:58:42 GMT (envelope-from
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be crumpet.local
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
References: <>
From: Nick Hilliard <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:58:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/7.0.44
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:58:52 -0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote on 20/01/2021 20:06:
> The proposal is to reserve a significant block of IPv6 space (e.g. 
> 2002::/16) as non routable address space to be allocated in Class A/B/C 
> sized chunks on a permanent basis either through random assignment or by 
> a new registrar TBD for a negligible one-time fee ($0.10 or less).

this idea was the subject of a recent discussion on 6man, subject 
thread: "Re-Launching the IPv6 ULA registry".  The original email was here:

There were several aspects which cropped up, but the core issues seem to 
be whether the end user needs both address permanence and the 
requirement for interconnection to third parties.  If you need both of 
these, then registered addresses are a good idea; if you don't need 
both, then ULA should work fine.

There are options out there for getting formally registered address 
space at modest cost.  It's not 10c once off, but it's not going to 
break the bank either.

The economics you're proposing may need a bit more consideration, 
especially given that registries need long term stability, both 
financial and from the point of view of governance.