Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch> Thu, 11 March 2021 10:22 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@schottelius.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB093A181A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 02:22:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ungleich.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kJfvJ-KslS0P for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 02:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.ungleich.ch (smtp.ungleich.ch [IPv6:2a0a:e5c0:0:2:400:b3ff:fe39:7956]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCCA63A1816 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 02:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nico.schottelius.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by smtp.ungleich.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F2811FEB7; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:22:33 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ungleich.ch; s=mail; t=1615458153; bh=xUKFlNP5clMcfROoCaUpcmjn8StXjriuiHMgQz/jxxg=; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date:From; b=EdIF5bzhvcCOe7dvLVYWJzUbG31nV1hOzy+GvwN1kovQjbpnPZ51/d5fahO+Pdt/p DAdLftXZzICFtuJnAc5z2qZ5y9Kzjhbf1jnJsYkj3GjoVfx6ybSbZ2kin/p5DtctUD bT2sH78eGazx0iDO+GyG82z3j44vyeQnJGiKqesFhnJM6pH+NbkF46uBeCYHNi/DW2 y7JK0OgYPFzojU/lktw4AwoaAvseJvb/oTDlWt59Olqo7DJRc0zlPHacs7UkedLcde RKBYdrSiH+jHlgjzmBiYVyKRPOSMyCgZY0JDQeiOfnVsPkM+8YorXUJDK/vjKyp978 FbQuvlyHFX3jw==
Received: by nico.schottelius.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0633F1A00038; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:22:35 +0100 (CET)
References: <CAMm+LwjNiE0P7RAVqzKMypNbh3=9BeqiWn_hGv3E=zX7-YmSXQ@mail.gmail.com> <72F969A9-AF94-47B6-B48C-B3CD4D9A7C72@strayalpha.com> <7cc9e38c-5a00-ec59-a8c2-10503cc40d50@si6networks.com> <CB1A6DF0-8CDD-495D-9F7B-80BF72F08C1E@strayalpha.com> <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com> <90718D2A-3483-45D2-A5FB-205659D4DCDB@cisco.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1
From: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>, The IAB <iab@iab.org>
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
In-reply-to: <90718D2A-3483-45D2-A5FB-205659D4DCDB@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:22:34 +0100
Message-ID: <87h7li0z2t.fsf@line.ungleich.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/W1_lKicbSd_Q68TqaBKDf4ycmmA>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 08:14:59 -0800
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:22:41 -0000

Good morning everyone,

I'm very sorry for the late reply, the amount incoming emails has been
extrem in the last weeks (I reply to one, I get 4 newly unread).


Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> writes:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As Nick Hillard pointed out, this came up in December on the IPv6
> list.  The registry is managed by Nico Schottelius and Ungleich[1].
> Does that make this registry The Registry?  Perhaps not.  Does it
> address the Sybil attack?  No.

I think at the moment I see ula.ungleich.ch as a thought experiment and
also as a question to the IPv6 community. IPv6 is supposed to solve a
lot of problems, one of them being accessiblity to addresses. However
it seems none of the current models is really allowing communities to
strive and build their networks with a minimal footprint of resources.

> There is clearly demand for such registration, given that there is
> already a registry of over 5,000 networks, and it is clear that
> Ungleich is satisfying that demand.  This raises some questions.  It
> may be the case that a listing may lead to people believing that they
> are somehow guaranteed that their use is indeed unique, when in fact
> no such guarantee can be made or kept under the current scheme.  Also
> I think there are some tough questions that may need to be resolved
> around points of contact and relevant laws.  These are things that
> both ICANN and the various RIRs have paid considerable attention to.

They did and they do. However I think the focus has never been on
enabling (non-profit) commmunities. I am emphasising on this as
historically when people can spend time (but not money) on something,
innovation happens. We have not yet addressed this problem properly in
the IPv6 world.

> One might ask: why aren’t people just going through the RIR system to
> get globally routable space?

It's way too expensive.

> I am sure there are varying answers to that question.  One question I
> have is whether a Regional Internet Registry is appropriator a global
> allocation.  Another question I have is whether such ULA allocations
> will realistically remain local.

ULAs are unlikely staying local, as we have seen with radio networks in
Germany. Tunnels are being used to interconnect remote cities and
non-collision (not necessarily public routing) are a primary concern.

> However, that the demand exists and is being satisfied is something that I encourage the IAB and this community to consider.  One of the key principles of stewardship of the address space in the past as been efficiency.  Another has been aggregation.  Here are some considerations the IAB, RIRs Nico, Phil, you Fernando, and other interest parties, might reasonably discuss:
>
> Are those principles are still being observed at the RIRs and how they have evolved,
> What are the blockers to using an RIR block?
> What should the applicable principles be?
> Are there risks to the Internet ecosystem of which ungleich (and similar) registry uses should be aware?
> What are the relevant policies that need to be incorporated into any new registry?
> What prefix should be used?
> Were there to be a more “official” registry, what are the roles of the various players, including this community, ICANN, the RIRs, ungleich, etc? And
> And who gets to decide these questions?
> If that sounds like an IAB workshop or a program or a BoF… well… It could be that the IAB and the RIRs have crisp answers to all of these questions.  In which case, I’m talking about an email or perhaps a statement that satisfies at least my curiosity and apparently those of others ;-)

I think you have quite some good points here and I am more than willing
to address these questions in a workshop style meeting. RIPE82 is
happening soon, but the IPv6 wg there is already fully booked and it
might not even be the right place, given this is more a global matter.

If anyone has a recommendation for which style workshop style meeting
would be appropriate, I would appreciate any pointers.

To put this in perspective: IPv6 is not only gaining in terms of
deployment, but also in terms of acceptance. It is an interesting time
window for making IPv6 truly available. But it is also a time-window in
which we can lose this opportunity.

Best regards,

Nico

--
Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch