Re: ULA Registration
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 24 March 2017 16:35 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 C7F5B120727 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.333
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no 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 P5bPkSTpzmt8 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB825129858 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v2OGZtdj023799 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:35:55 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3359E20AD4A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:35:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7E52067CE for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:35:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v2OGZsQS025428 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:35:55 +0100
Subject: Re: ULA Registration
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <CAN-Dau132Jg0SsRjgcrxzGfbUEx_KPES9wMgDMg_++-zwY+0dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEnbrFk5EW=V_eXWQrW5PuVDv-oYhjiCxSWWhbo0z+SpSe0Nsg@mail.gmail.com> <C10DBF40-A9D5-40A7-8DD8-A9ABAEF2FBB7@consulintel.es>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <124a9357-0913-5e12-ce8b-4be0dcb03898@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:35:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <C10DBF40-A9D5-40A7-8DD8-A9ABAEF2FBB7@consulintel.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/sePHENHWjo4y3hvfxcsYrtKpgVc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:35:59 -0000
Le 24/03/2017 à 17:17, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ a écrit : > 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. If IANA can take it up, all the better. > 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. Well I am not sure there is other reasoning now for ULA-Centralized: no more and no less reasons than before. I may be wrong though. But this event does teach important things. All ULA-C depends a lot on the viability for a central server, its lifetime, its funding perenity. If there is no server for it, there is no ULA-C. It's impossible to rewind the effort that was spent in the ULA-C discussion... But does one need to update the RFC4193 "ULA" and tell there is no L==1, it's always a 0 (?) This is a significant event. Alex > > 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. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative > Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
- ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shuttin… David Farmer
- Re: ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shu… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shu… Pim van Pelt
- Re: ULA Registration (Was: Re: IETF: SixXS is shu… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: ULA Registration Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: ULA Registration Alexandre Petrescu
- RE: ULA Registration Manfredi, Albert E
- ULA clashes don't matter [Re: ULA Registration] Brian E Carpenter
- RE: ULA clashes don't matter [Re: ULA Registratio… Manfredi, Albert E
- Re: ULA clashes don't matter [Re: ULA Registratio… james woodyatt
- Re: ULA Registration Simon Hobson
- Re: ULA Registration Pim van Pelt
- Re: ULA clashes don't matter [Re: ULA Registratio… Erik Kline