[128124] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Jul 25 02:14:33 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007242226290.1765@qbhto.arg>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:10:52 -0700
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 24, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>=20
>>>> Eventually ARIN (or someone else will do it for them) may create a =
site
>> ...
>>> Did you mean something like this maybe ?:
>>>=20
>>> http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ula/
>>=20
>> Q.E.D.
>>=20
>> The RFC seeks to avoid a registry so we end up with the potential for
>> many as a result. May as well have had ARIN do it officially in the
>> first place so there'd only be one.
>=20
> So, back when ULA was first proposed, some of us said (sometimes =
privately) that there are only 2 rational options:
> 1. Do it; with a persistent, guaranteed unique, global registry.
> 2. Don't do it.
>=20
> Option 2 was a non-starter since there was too much critical mass. The =
logical candidate to operate option 1 was the IANA, and the RIRs were =
having none of that. (For bonus points, explain how the RIRs continue to =
exist if everyone can have all of the guaranteed-globally-unique IPv6 =
space they wanted for free.)
>=20
For bonus points, explain how the numbers side of IANA pays for anything =
when the RIRs stop funding it?
> So given the overwhelming force pulling at this thing from both =
directions, you end up somewhere in the middle where no one wants to be.
>=20
> And BTW, the lottery is actually the perfect analogy for ULA, since no =
matter how astronomical the odds against, eventually someone always =
wins.
>=20
Except in the case of ULA, hitting the jackpot is actually losing.
Owen
