Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

[Nico Schottelius <[e-mail]>]

Good evening,

David Farmer <[e-mail]> writes:

> I assumed Nico was talking about some version of Community Networking.
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/community-networks/
> or;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

That is correct. Or rather well known in our region:
https://freifunk.net/, mostly based on a modified OpenWrt version.

> It is fairly common for Community Networks, especially wireless ones to use
> RFC 1918 for IPv4 and ULA for IPv6, and interconnect with other Community
> Networks over tunnels on donated ISP connectivity from participants or
> others.

ULA is very dominant in these networks and it's probably also one of the
sources we got the first requests for establishing the ULA registry.

> ARIN has a definition and policy for Community Networks again allow for /40
> allocations.
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-11-community-network
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-9-community-network-allocations

That is actually a *much* better approach than using ULA. As mentioned
before, the $250 tag is significantly better than 4 digit+, but could
still be improved. [see next mail]


--
Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch