Re: ULA Registration

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
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>