Re: For whom is IPv6? [was: Happy St Nicholas Day: Re-Launching the IPv6 ULA registry]

On 11-Dec-20 09:36, Michael Richardson wrote:
> 
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>     > I think David has it right. The confusing aspect of Nico's argument, to
>     > me, is that ULAs can never be of any use for wider connectivity outside
>     > the organisation that "owns" the ULA prefix, *by the very definition of
>     > ULAs*.  It doesn't matter in the slightest if "Hamburg" and "Berlin"
>     > use (by pure chance) the same ULA prefix, because there is no
>     > connection between both of them via various ISPs, and then *by
> 
> That's not correct.  That's very much capital-Internet bias.
> It's IPv4 scarcity think.  IP is for all sorts of uses that might not involve the *I*nternet.

Indeed, I was not thinking about address *scarcity* as an issue. I was
trying to figure out how a CB-radio like group in "Hamburg", using ULA
space, would connect to another similar group in "Berlin", using Nico's
examples. Unless they're willing to lease their own line (like we did
in the early days of the IPv4nternet), the only solution would be to
use an incumbent ISP, who certainly won't route ULAs without €€€.

> 
> There may be no connection via the *DFZ*.
> You might never be able to reach these networks from NZ.
> 
> That doesn't mean there is no connection.
> It could be a hundred 100m 802.15.4 radios running on solar power.

Right, that's an entirely different situation and I hope it
will be a frequent one. We have several /3s spare. Should we
dedicate a /3 to that class of usage, and figure out (with IANA
and the RIRs) how to make such prefixes available for admin
cost only, or even self-service free of charge along the lines
Nico suggested?

(Because I'm thinking that for the full power of such mesh
networking to be available, ULA-C would not be enough.)

   Brian

>     > What costs money with a routeable prefix is not the prefix, it's the
>     > routeability and the connectivity.
>     > If that's a problem, it can only be
>     > solved by some such RIR policy approach as David describes. Has RIPE
>     > never considered this?
> 
> Routeability has never been promises by RIRs.
> Connectivity is and has always been by 1:1 contract.
> 
> What the RIRs promise are:
>   1) uniqueness.
>   2) whois and reverse DNS
>   3) RPSL and RPKI [added this decade]
> 
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 