On 20 nov 2007, at 18:58, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I object to the assumption that ULAs would be subject to RIR
involvement.
I presume you mean ULA-C/G, not ULA.
For the purpose of the above objection, I'm not making that
distinction, but for the random bits derived ULAs there doesn't seem
to be much danger of RIR involvement.
RIRs deal with ISPs and the addresses ISPs use on the internet.
The holders of these addresses aren't ISPs and can't even be
necessarily assumed to be a customer of an ISP, and the
addresses aren't used on the internet. As such, it would be
unnatural to involve the RIRs here.
I haven't surveyed all of the RIRs, but at least one (ARIN) has
explicit policy allowing registration of addresses _not_ for use on
the public internet, either in isolation or as part of completely
private network(s).
I fail to see how that makes a material difference.
As it stands, ARIN's rejection rate for PIv6 requests is under 3%;
is solving this "problem" really worth our time
Not sure what you mean by "solving this problem". Some people want ULA-
C. Presumably, they'll be willing to pay reasonable registration
costs. Find a few parties willing to run registries and be done with it.
I'll also observe that you can turn an address into a domain name and
that the domain selling business is both making good money and has
enough competition to keep prices reasonable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
