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

I was trying for some time to make it happen via a global policy, which needs to be approved in all the RIRs, but didn’t succeeded. May be was too early:

I’m happy to try to run this again if we believe there is some benefit out of it.

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2007-05

https://www.afrinic.net/library/corporate-documents/264-proposal-for-ipv6-ula-central-afpub-2007-v6-003

https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/prop-048/assets/prop-048-v001.txt

http://www2.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2007-06-en.pdf

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ipv6 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>
Responder a: <farmer@umn.edu>
Fecha: viernes, 24 de marzo de 2017, 16:24
Para: Pim van Pelt <pim@ipng.nl>
CC: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Asunto: ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shutting down)

    On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Pim van Pelt <pim@ipng.nl> wrote:

    Hoi Alex,

    On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
    <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Congratulations for past achievements!
    Thank you.

    > Tunnelbroker ok, but how about ULA generation and registration at sixxs.  Is
    > it shut down tombstone too?
    > https://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
    TL/DR: Plan of record is that it will cease to exist.

    This registry was for educational purposes, and has no official
    status. Importantly, as ULA is random per definition, the chance of
    collisions is extremely low. It is fairly straight forward to get a
    prefix from one of the RIRs. While that does cost some money, it is an
    activity that is not the main charter of SixXS and will be expected to
    continue with the RIRs.

    There are other purposes for registration than just uniqueness, with ULA such as identification of leaked traffic for instance, but more generally registration facilitates many forms of operational coordination.  We have the RIRs use registries because we want more than just a guarantee of uniqueness, we also want to facilitate operational coordination on many fronts.  

    Further, ULA prefixes provide something that RIR allocated GUA prefixes don't, that is a presumption that they are not routed(or reachable) between administrative domains.  While they can be routed between administrative domains, this is really only suppose to happen with one-on-one coordination. Were as RIR allocated GUA prefixes are presumed to be routed between all administrative domains.  Their is no guarantee they are actually routed between any two administrative domains, but it is presumed to be the case.  And, ULA is presumed to be the exact opposite that.

    While ULAs are presumed to not be routed between administrative domains, that doesn't mean they are not use cases where registration can provide advantages, especially when ULAs are used for enterprise use cases.  There are probably much less advantages of ULA registration when all you are looking for is a semi-stable prefix that isn't dependent on a service provider, like in typical residential use case, but these are not the only use cases for ULA. 

    > And what happens to the registrations?
    Can't quite parse the question - so let me offer three answers (maybe
    the answer you're looking for is among them):

    I think he means the ULA registrations.  As I mention above, there are other advantages to registration than just uniqueness.  

    From this discussion on another list, here is the count of ULA registrations in the SixXS database.  
    +------+-------+
    | Year | Count |
    +------+-------+
    | 2007 |    63 |
    | 2008 |   140 |
    | 2009 |   321 |
    | 2010 |   611 |
    | 2011 |   835 |
    | 2012 |   742 |
    | 2013 |   724 |
    | 2014 |  1096 |
    | 2015 |  1303 |
    | 2016 |   640 |
    | 2017 |   143 |
    +------+-------+

    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?

    Thanks.

    Happy to discuss this or other things further as we near the lights-out date.

    groet,
    Pim

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

    -- 
    ===============================================
    David Farmer               Email:farmer@umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu>
    Networking & Telecommunication Services
    Office of Information Technology
    University of Minnesota   
    2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:(612)%20626-0815>
    Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:(612)%20812-9952>
    =============================================== 

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.