Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>]

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote on 21/01/2021 16:00:
> Perhaps we should ask how registries can go wrong. Or maybe we should 
> ask the IAB to consider this.I can think of a few problems:
> 
> Integrity
> * Duplicate registrations
> * Unauthorized registration modification
> * Unpublished registrations
> * Inappropriate semantic mapping
> 
> Availability
> * Rent seeking
> * Denial of service
> * Coercion by government

+ practical issues: insolvency, mismanagement, internal fraud, graft, 
liabilities therefrom, corruption, threat of legal action due to 
deregistration, threats from stakeholders / owners, etc.

> OK so there is one 'risk' that perhaps should be mentioned openly 
> because it is likely the one of most concern to people, 'what are the 
> unexpected uses of these addresses' or 'what else is PHB planning he is 
> not telling us about'.

obviously raising prices 10x after lock-in has been achieved 👀

There's no shortage of failure modes.

> The registry concern that is rarely considered in IETF is what happens 
> if there is no registry? There are two possibilities:
> 
> 1) Innovation is put on hold until the registry is created.
> 2) People just create their own code points
> 
> The second has occurred on countless occasions and sometimes between 
> really big companies. Every hard drive has a unique identifier which is 
> actually in the MAC address space. After asking nicely and getting the 
> run-around, the drive makers just allocated themselves 1/16th of the 
> total MAC address space.

does this matter to the IEEE?  I.e. is this a MAC?

Nick