IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 13 December 2020 22:27 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C6F3A0B54 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 14:27:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xcAbgaRHUf3I for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 14:27:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED6FE3A0B45 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 14:27:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089233898C; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:29:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Ii8ooSCV7nMd; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:29:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F39A3898B; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:29:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A8977; Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:27:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: Nico Schottelius <nico.schottelius@ungleich.ch>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: For whom is IPv6? [was: Happy St Nicholas Day: Re-Launching the IPv6 ULA registry]
In-Reply-To: <354f5f3a-3a4e-6dbf-0b62-3af7277788b1@si6networks.com>
References: <87r1o3deni.fsf@ungleich.ch> <CAKD1Yr3ptRjewThToEgERUOKwehTwdqNUAq14acc_nHLFqf3bg@mail.gmail.com> <87im9ds0z9.fsf@ungleich.ch> <fc637d64-a763-e5cf-fb93-002babe5f9ae@foobar.org> <87v9dcr37w.fsf@ungleich.ch> <CA+9kkMCb9fJQFJaP5ZaiwkQ2nRS7Fsn+q=C5OCPqdmMZRLSBKg@mail.gmail.com> <87sg8fp8ez.fsf@ungleich.ch> <47d1fbd9-8979-91af-240f-ec8c86f15e8d@gmail.com> <87h7ouoww4.fsf@ungleich.ch> <25439.1607608185@localhost> <354f5f3a-3a4e-6dbf-0b62-3af7277788b1@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 17:27:24 -0500
Message-ID: <5697.1607898444@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/n7cBnmYLAp3U6ntSCkJI4RXOP98>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2020 22:27:28 -0000

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
    >> The question of what address can networks not-intended to be connected
    >> to the public Default Free Zone can use is one that I have brought up
    >> repeatedly over the last decade.

    > Wel... that's ULA, isn't it?

Well, no.

    >> I have argued over and over again that we need an allocation mechanism
    >> that is fee-free (or at least, no-recurring fee), and is free from
    >> significant efforts for justification.
    >>
    >> Unroutable /48s should be freely available in my opinion.  IPv6 space
    >> is large enough for this.  {I was also a fan of Tony Li's geo-ip (IPv6
    >> assigned by Long/Latt)}
    >>
    >> While it seems that ULA-R suits, it is lacking of two important
    >> things: 1) accountability/audibility (whois) 2) reverse DNS.

    > But these requirements seem to be broken. If the space is to be
    > unroutable, that really means non-global scope.

This is the *I*nternet problem.
You think that globally unique means routable on the DFZ.
But, that's because so many people think that IP implies Internet.

    > As such, addresses are
    > not globally meaningful, and hence it doesn't make much sense to
    > register something that, at the end of the day, is not globally
    > meaningful.

But, we want meaning, just not routing.

    > If you do what something that is globally unique, but that it's not
    > routable, then you want GUAs, and some policy enforced somewhere such
    > that packets are not routed.

    > Note: Having a registry is something that can, potentially, require
    > resources of difference sorts. And I guess in a capitalist world that
    > means that somebody would need to pay for it?

A one-time fee would be annoying, but doable for many.
A recurring fee would be a problem.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email