Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Sat, 23 January 2021 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 F26333A0E79 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 02:02:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.972
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.373, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 ns-S_HICfp5E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 02:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B90123A0E78 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 23 Jan 2021 02:02:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7906; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1611396163; x=1612605763; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=pJD4ZVy4kixSap6Fqr32dRdW11q6uOBNRmwTasEFs6Y=; b=nHo6V0X3QC8KuEt/g7fXtU3s7RW1KuHfgikmfS3RoFzsVHfOF6vonFy5 4YFhlc6CP5EiuNmI93Sgte8UAVeRnHGrCxW1cWKRDGSH2OFoa5EO67+KV 91z41l44e7xhh+UprymcVdRTfgoC5r+vHONlTThbCFJWjwOMX/OGfvjET Q=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 488
X-IPAS-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AhAQB38wtglxbLJq1iHAEBAQEBAQcBARIBAQQEAQGCD?= =?us-ascii?q?4MhVwEgEoRviQSIMCWUJ4Y1gWgEBwEBAQoDAQEfEAQBAYRKAoF5JjgTAgMBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEDAgMBAQEBBQEBAQIBBgQUAQEBAQEBAQGGNgyFdAYjVhALDjQCAlcGJ4MSA?= =?us-ascii?q?YMGsmR2gTKFWYRmCgaBOIFThSiEHIInQYIAgREnDBCCVj6ECQESAYM6NIIsB?= =?us-ascii?q?IFVUBkxE30UDGxDDQGMBIdKiT2cMoMBgymBN4RQjCiGEwMfkxaPXp88kkWDc?= =?us-ascii?q?AIEBgUCFoFtIWlwMxoIGxU7KgGCPz0SGQ2OLQ4JgyaLAUADZwIGAQkBAQMJi?= =?us-ascii?q?zVgAQE?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,368,1602547200"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="32819980"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 23 Jan 2021 10:02:39 +0000
Received: from [10.61.199.122] ([10.61.199.122]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 10NA2cxM014961 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:02:39 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <90718D2A-3483-45D2-A5FB-205659D4DCDB@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C1F7D88A-6BC5-44A6-9866-1B865AC826B1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.40.0.2.32\))
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 11:02:38 +0100
In-Reply-To: <53d7190a-3e1f-66b3-0574-8e8fbb3a7a5e@si6networks.com>
Cc: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, The IETF List <ietf@ietf.org>, Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>, The IAB <iab@iab.org>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.40.0.2.32)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.199.122, [10.61.199.122]
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/fAHuRqQvcXAFcat8O-5SFGo723A>
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: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:02:48 -0000

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.

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.

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

One aspect with which I take great issue is that this should even be considered for IPv4.  IMHO, that would be getting blood from a stone.

Eliot
[1] https://ula.ungleich.ch/