Re: ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shutting down)

Trying to answer your 2nd question … I think the RIR communities (not the RIRs itself) didn’t got to understand if ULA-C was actually needed or not.

This is at the end, the only reason why policy proposals get approved. The communities understanding the need/problem and agreeing in the proposed solution.

I also tried to see if instead of having the NRO running the ULA-C registry, or one of them on behalf of all, or a “unique” central registry managed by all, may be the way is to ask IANA to run the service with a low fee, just to cover the cost.

As said, if we have a valid reason now, maybe even the same reasons we had before, but now are better understood, I’m happy to revive all the process in all the RIRs, work in an update of the ula-central with original authors or whatever is needed.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Pim van Pelt <pim@ipng.nl>
Responder a: <pim@ipng.nl>
Fecha: viernes, 24 de marzo de 2017, 17:08
Para: David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
CC: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Asunto: Re: ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shutting down)

    Hi David,

    On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:24 PM, David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu> wrote:
    > There are other purposes for registration than just uniqueness, ...
    I see your point and I agree with the operational benefits of registering.
    Scanning back on the archives on ULA-C discussions, there seem to be
    two camps, the pragmatic folk who would like to use a registry to
    debug operational issues, and the fundamental camp who do not believe
    ULA prefixes should be visible, should not be resolvable globally, and
    so on. Personally, I'm in the former camp, believing the visibility is
    a benefit at times, while the cost of registering is not large.

    >> > And what happens to the registrations?
    > That is 6618 ULA block that were registered, that seems like that's more
    > than just a fad. Does this make a case for resurrecting the discussions of
    > ULA-C? I think it does.  But, what do others think?
    My question is not should you register the prefixes or not. My questions are:
    - what is the status of SixXS as an authority?
    - why do the RIRs not assume responsibility?

    My first question is somewhat facetious, as the answer is clearly "it
    has no authority". The answer to my second question is not captured in
    Jordi's reply (thanks for the context, though!) but I'm keenly
    interested in it. It seems that if the RIRs did not approve in 2007,
    other than closing that gap, why should I do it? I'll wait for others
    to reply to David's request for comments but if we are to re-raise the
    ULA-C proposal, I'm happy to be involved (surely by transferring our
    existing data, but in any other way we believe makes sense).

    groet,
    Pim

    -- 
    Pim van Pelt <pim@ipng.nl>
    PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
    ipv6@ietf.org
    Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.