Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Thu, 21 January 2021 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CCF83A169A for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:57:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4ezKMzBPVSv for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:57:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C98A3A1698 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:57:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id f6so536753ybq.13 for <>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:57:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i2+2eH/gaC6Qly0UGbczZ7TlxopgvPi2gUYXw3mZLow=; b=CIJu95Nf+MasjQ+3zYJ25NuJb59MZJhkiwgXt91w9hIVxABbiIErTTVC8ijy025EFp UttUB7QZiINDILGclPDHPbda9biJkNE5E5GjkAARVXp94OgoIuoE+0UMDMLvzz7ezBz2 CxYytAktniOKIS534cykwEh7U+JqMHsGQ23ceKakDkWkx5N4lGWLg3j/P2FkxdG7GSHr fDL8q/ZPmOfRS9kYM5fp9wn7F1alUd3GcxMncPVGVWm5YdvIdnKrLxbbpg8fDpPaySX/ OhXLnevRZRn1C3E2XxLThInkFEX5SuX4DEOLSLKBc867xyyB88hSAbFeSfm9+JtVomz4 p4yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530J6ZFbNt5rJvW0U8cKdC+DTdF3z5kEyP8XB7g9z3DbnbXBmUYw iXpqj/osGVJzJwcNeIAVLJaZ6JX7RnvRD4FFhgk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwAL5UdsUzyi29ossn2p7K9Wflqa8VL+KWM+/IFGyrnhbeqGz3Sz9ss5ZPoHDsu9EKCLRLCFSPdoAteEpVOJHQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:7704:: with SMTP id s4mr19412670ybc.523.1611194251037; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 17:57:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:57:20 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Nick Hilliard <>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ff4dff05b95f64a0"
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 01:57:34 -0000

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 6:25 PM Nick Hilliard <> wrote:

> Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote on 20/01/2021 21:58:
> > So lets say I decide to start up a registry. I write up an RFC
> > describing the answers to the issues you raise and I get FC00::0000/32
> > to allocate on an experimental basis. Worst that can happen is I screw
> > up and lose track of who was allocated what. I can now issue 4 billion
> > /64s before I have to come and ask for more space.
> whoa, wait up there!  Either you have a registry or you don't.  If your
> model is ok with long term inaccuracy due to data loss, data rot, or
> cruft accumulation, then the question needs to be asked whether you
> ought to be running a registry to start with.  The whole point of a
> registry is that it provides some level of comfort about resource
> registration accuracy.
> Nick

I said worst case.

People make waaaay too much out of the risks of running registries. There
are an infinite number of petty bureaucratic objections that can be raised.
That is how PEM was killed. Oh whatabout this, whatabout that. oh nobody
knows, oh! oh!

These are private addresses. The only thing that the registry is
undertaking that matters at IETF level is that there won't be duplicates.
And every registry customer is going to be able to verify that their
assignment is unique at the time it is assigned just by checking the
registry. So I have it all covered.

The whole log is going to be public. In fact that is a big part of my plan
to offload cost.

We really need to get over the worry about allowing people to start stuff.
And especially when it comes to registries. If people have issues they can
state, fine. But we saw what happened when folk decided to get precious
about the SRV prefix registry - people just gave up waiting and made them
up. That is what I did for SAML and will do again if necessary.

People need to understand that 'I am starting a project, what code point
can I use' is a request for a code point. It is not a request for
permission to start the project. The Internet is all about permissionless