IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> Fri, 12 March 2021 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <farmer@umn.edu>
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 BA48D3A11ED for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:27:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.118
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umn.edu
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 4VwI5cM-7LYX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:27:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF7A83A11EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DxV7r0vt5z9vCBs for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:27:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu
Received: from mta-p5.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p5.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iUjCELzAJxYE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:27:03 -0600 (CST)
Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p5.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DxV7q4khNz9vC8Z for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:27:03 -0600 (CST)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4DxV7q4khNz9vC8Z
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p5.oit.umn.edu 4DxV7q4khNz9vC8Z
Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id gn30so9446978ejc.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:27:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sWyysd4BOAFO3XYk4nefbQgKxhtEAJ0il46wyTjJEWU=; b=lgrgbbvTt0E4Xfr2ZB23HItTuafQmW8pbAa8YolDChRGFJlAiv1m9c9X/AxAwoinTi +WVuF2X/OH5wfr4rhKaz60f+gzvd2RlxbCZCcCNzlahRXTbO/nliZYUFn8b9oMsSaAwF FylFICc07HUib8dARlJzIjJMPPBl+u1qKwq3S4fq/zqumtHLgLcJHZqK4mQpAnYVeC+8 gKP5ICScqgoOxHXF8A835uagzCNCtpuXbO/3i+DekxSiZzUH4S9o767aABPDsng6+qqk Pyk6XXc+4UNyEKqUfR7jEgDDUCqMg1mrsnn9FsEogy5BrpqcbKl2zU38IGSXug3uJ1ed QRWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sWyysd4BOAFO3XYk4nefbQgKxhtEAJ0il46wyTjJEWU=; b=Xy/FLb1vlfINICbNtXk9sV6ITicu0OLsrU6yqwq+YdRamjHTjHV++GUsnC2BtGxgbu ykFjYTHlYiPFxnqa7suH1PRIreU9xsQYqykoEBBNpXVzfsiWkYw/ePuqWtqDFik/pXJO dGrMhSje9upnjHMfZjWmNbfNNHfozQvbmJ5nKXVpTLtk/BdZVq9zgqy0jlvps7XrP1Gj 91RGpai2rG8K/lrg5xxi4BHUbQeUbJUoFo/KgLwDTSndVyzPoVjJiScHMzuWWXhIxA94 4kUO71V1Jp+jpylq5amuL6eJ19+A6+0t8n9pkvjkn21V2m1SgbNa/p6jzc37M1beeHsS YIWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aECkGhnZUesu5oEK13N+P5OA62FLoC3VHLllv0vRqf8YqhMrj RVcORZmgqrg0NRFN/ddfinkaXmx8520bXVR+AQMG6LFOhM+jHoV/0J4VnzVsY8ICev+hYa4K0j7 DqQq2CPOA556c4NYZep4Yg0Ta
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d157:: with SMTP id br23mr6352823ejb.192.1615516022276; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:27:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/2qvbYSdvebOUiNuzGdpNUXX0oNmYmb2x3CbNDxiYZjxQR/zHRFFmk+nHoDVS52LtvbthHIU8DkFKKUJXAPM=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d157:: with SMTP id br23mr6352810ejb.192.1615516021972; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:27:01 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <87h7li0z2t.fsf@line.ungleich.ch> <253e084c-6ced-7f94-c909-bd44f7c53529@network-heretics.com> <CAN-Dau2YCvCfWmPwGhF8q2c5fMDCbMhNBDA180x1o1Y9ZQga7Q@mail.gmail.com> <ae98f990-a063-70a2-5244-8aca0d19be44@gmail.com> <CAN-Dau3pV7y7g=QxGwipPUAQgf-TXE41MJGK47oUeSaNx5COng@mail.gmail.com> <0d364d72-44e3-27bc-fc15-c3c30da4522c@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d364d72-44e3-27bc-fc15-c3c30da4522c@gmail.com>
From: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:26:45 -0600
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1+Pc658VY_oWJS+ooNLw8+Y59ma2nuY1jbzcecaO=fxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF-Discussion Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e72ce05bd4da2d2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yympfgASfZ3Yg00APsHxPDzeCCg>
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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 02:27:07 -0000

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 19:39 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Nico's use case seems a bit different though. He seems to be saying that
> there's a "ham radio" or "CB radio" type of use case where arbitrary sets
> of users anywhere in the world might want to route between themselves
> without paying any ISP for the privilege, so they'd like free address space
> too. Quite how they'd get the bandwidth without paying for it is a puzzle
> though. Generally that's the main cost element in ISP pricing.
>
> Nico, a full length description of the use case as an Internet-Draft would
> be very helpful. We could take that to v6ops for discussion.
>
> Regards
>    Brian


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

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. Ham radio is a good metaphor for this type of networking.

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

Allowing options for Community Networks to use GUA instead of ULA.

Thanks

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status