Subject: Re: Non routable IPv6 registry proposal

From: Nico Schottelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:22:34 +0100

Good morning everyone,

I'm very sorry for the late reply, the amount incoming emails has been
extrem in the last weeks (I reply to one, I get 4 newly unread).

Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As Nick Hillard pointed out, this came up in December on the IPv6
> list.  The registry is managed by Nico Schottelius and Ungleich[1].
> Does that make this registry The Registry?  Perhaps not.  Does it
> address the Sybil attack?  No.

I think at the moment I see ula.ungleich.ch as a thought experiment and
also as a question to the IPv6 community. IPv6 is supposed to solve a
lot of problems, one of them being accessiblity to addresses. However
it seems none of the current models is really allowing communities to
strive and build their networks with a minimal footprint of resources.

> There is clearly demand for such registration, given that there is
> already a registry of over 5,000 networks, and it is clear that
> Ungleich is satisfying that demand.  This raises some questions.  It
> may be the case that a listing may lead to people believing that they
> are somehow guaranteed that their use is indeed unique, when in fact
> no such guarantee can be made or kept under the current scheme.  Also
> I think there are some tough questions that may need to be resolved
> around points of contact and relevant laws.  These are things that
> both ICANN and the various RIRs have paid considerable attention to.

They did and they do. However I think the focus has never been on
enabling (non-profit) commmunities. I am emphasising on this as
historically when people can spend time (but not money) on something,
innovation happens. We have not yet addressed this problem properly in
the IPv6 world.

> One might ask: why aren’t people just going through the RIR system to
> get globally routable space?

It's way too expensive.

> I am sure there are varying answers to that question.  One question I
> have is whether a Regional Internet Registry is appropriator a global
> allocation.  Another question I have is whether such ULA allocations
> will realistically remain local.

ULAs are unlikely staying local, as we have seen with radio networks in
Germany. Tunnels are being used to interconnect remote cities and
non-collision (not necessarily public routing) are a primary concern.

> However, that the demand exists and is being satisfied is something that I encourage the IAB and this community to consider.  One of the key principles of stewardship of the address space in the past as been efficiency.  Another has been aggregation.  Here are some considerations the IAB, RIRs Nico, Phil, you Fernando, and other interest parties, might reasonably discuss:
>
> Are those principles are still being observed at the RIRs and how they have evolved,
> What are the blockers to using an RIR block?
> What should the applicable principles be?
> Are there risks to the Internet ecosystem of which ungleich (and similar) registry uses should be aware?
> What are the relevant policies that need to be incorporated into any new registry?
> What prefix should be used?
> Were there to be a more “official” registry, what are the roles of the various players, including this community, ICANN, the RIRs, ungleich, etc? And
> And who gets to decide these questions?
> If that sounds like an IAB workshop or a program or a BoF… well… It could be that the IAB and the RIRs have crisp answers to all of these questions.  In which case, I’m talking about an email or perhaps a statement that satisfies at least my curiosity and apparently those of others ;-)

I think you have quite some good points here and I am more than willing
to address these questions in a workshop style meeting. RIPE82 is
happening soon, but the IPv6 wg there is already fully booked and it
might not even be the right place, given this is more a global matter.

If anyone has a recommendation for which style workshop style meeting
would be appropriate, I would appreciate any pointers.

To put this in perspective: IPv6 is not only gaining in terms of
deployment, but also in terms of acceptance. It is an interesting time
window for making IPv6 truly available. But it is also a time-window in
which we can lose this opportunity.

Best regards,

Nico

--
Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:48:52 -0500

On 3/11/21 5:22 AM, Nico Schottelius wrote:

>> Another question I have is whether such ULA allocations

Despite the name, there's no reason that ULAs should stay local.   As 
long as they are properly chosen, it's perfectly reasonable to route 
them privately between cooperating networks, and IMO this is part of 
their design.   One of the problems with RFC 1918 addresses in IPv4 was 
that enterprises had a need to route traffic between networks each using 
that space.   The resulting address collisions generally required 
explicit NAT configurations to work around, and these were failure-prone 
and difficult to manage.  ULAs were intended in part to remedy this problem.

Keith

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:19:11 -0600

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:49 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Despite the name, there's no reason that ULAs should stay local.   As long
> as they are properly chosen, it's perfectly reasonable to route them
> privately between cooperating networks, and IMO this is part of their
> design.   One of the problems with RFC 1918 addresses in IPv4 was that
> enterprises had a need to route traffic between networks each using that
> space.   The resulting address collisions generally required explicit NAT
> configurations to work around, and these were failure-prone and difficult
> to manage.  ULAs were intended in part to remedy this problem.
>
> Keith
>
The "L" for Local isn't intended to have a strict definition of Local.
However, similarly, the "U" for Unique isn't intended to have a strict
definition of Unique either, especially a mathematical definition of
Unique.

You can easily interconnect thousands or even tens of thousands of ULA
prefixes without much chance of an address collision, as long as the random
assignment process is actually used. Whereas, if you try to interconnect
billions of ULA prefixes, you will probably start running into the birthday
paradox.

So the interconnection of ULA prefixes, the route-ability of them, is not
intended to be unlimited. There are limits to the number of ULA prefixes
that SHOULD be interconnected to each other; nevertheless, this limit is
extremely generous for the intended use cases.

If you disregard the intended use cases and use them outside the intended
use cases, then address collisions could become an issue.

Thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[email-masked]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:41:26 -0600

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:15 AM Nico Schottelius <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > ... Also

The ARIN community has put significant effort into reducing the barriers as
low as possible, for IPv6 allocations, all barriers can't be eliminated.
However, the entry point has been lowered to $250 for a /40 IPv6
allocation, intended for the smallest ISP-like organization, an LIR,
that is an organization that makes assignments to other end-uerser.

See the policy ARIN-2020-3, which has a status of Awaiting Implementation,
and the ARIN Fee Schedule.
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
https://www.arin.net/resources/fees/fee_schedule/

Is this low enough? Maybe not, but it is by far the lowest amongst the
RIRs, I believe at least 400% lower than the next lowest RIR.

Thanks

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:16:50 +1300

David,
On 12-Mar-21 08:19, David Farmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:49 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Despite the name, there's no reason that ULAs should stay local.   As long as they are properly chosen, it's perfectly reasonable to route them privately between cooperating networks, and IMO this is part of their design.   One of the problems with RFC 1918 addresses in IPv4 was that enterprises had a need to route traffic between networks each using that space.   The resulting address collisions generally required explicit NAT configurations to work around, and these were failure-prone and difficult to manage.  ULAs were intended in part to remedy this problem.
> 
>     Keith
> 
> The "L" for Local isn't intended to have a strict definition of Local. However, similarly, the "U" for Unique isn't intended to have a strict definition of Unique either, especially a mathematical definition of Unique. 
> 
> You can easily interconnect thousands or even tens of thousands of ULA prefixes without much chance of an address collision, as long as the random assignment process is actually used. Whereas, if you try to interconnect billions of ULA prefixes, you will probably start running into the birthday paradox.
> 
> So the interconnection of ULA prefixes, the route-ability of them, is not intended to be unlimited. There are limits to the number of ULA prefixes that SHOULD be interconnected to each other; nevertheless, this limit is extremely generous for the intended use cases.
> 
> If you disregard the intended use cases and use them outside the intended use cases, then address collisions could become an issue.

I'm not sure where you get your "intended" from. I don't think we've ever really written done the intended use cases in such detail. (Except for the abandoned https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations-02 )

    Brian

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:51:43 -0600

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM Brian E Carpenter <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:49 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> >
> >     Despite the name, there's no reason that ULAs should stay local.
> As long as they are properly chosen, it's perfectly reasonable to route
> them privately between cooperating networks, and IMO this is part of their
> > So the interconnection of ULA prefixes, the route-ability of them, is
> not intended to be unlimited. There are limits to the number of ULA
> prefixes that SHOULD be interconnected to each other; nevertheless, this
> limit is extremely generous for the intended use cases.
> >
> > If you disregard the intended use cases and use them outside the
> intended use cases, then address collisions could become an issue.
>
> I'm not sure where you get your "intended" from. I don't think we've ever
> really written done the intended use cases in such detail. (Except for the
> abandoned
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-considerations-02
> )
>
>     Brian
>

The first sentence of the Abstract for RFC4193 says;

This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally
unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a site.

This is expanded upon in the first paragraph of the Introduction to RFC4193;

This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is
globally unique and is intended for local communications [IPV6]. ...
They are routable inside of a more limited area such as a site.  They may
also be routed between a limited set of sites.

Those sound a lot like intended use cases to me, the key phrases in that
for me are, "local communications", "usually ... a site", and "a limited
set of sites."

Yes, that's pretty vague, but I don't see a reasonable interpretation of
those phrases that include every site on the Internet, or even every site
in a country or state, maybe it could include every site in a small to
modest city, but even that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

YMMV
Thanks

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:25:47 -0800

I can tell you definitively that the DNS Root Servers use IPv6 addresses for anycast, but they are indistinguishable from unicast addresses in format. The anycast magic is in BGP.

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Mar 11, 2021, at 12:53 PM, David Farmer <farmer=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> David,
> This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally unique and is intended for local communications, usually inside of a site.
> 
> This document defines an IPv6 unicast address format that is globally unique and is intended for local communications [IPV6]. ...
> They are routable inside of a more limited area such as a site.  They may also be routed between a limited set of sites.
> 
> Those sound a lot like intended use cases to me, the key phrases in that for me are, "local communications", "usually ... a site", and "a limited set of sites." 
> 
> Yes, that's pretty vague, but I don't see a reasonable interpretation of those phrases that include every site on the Internet, or even every site in a country or state, maybe it could include every site in a small to modest city, but even that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
> 
> YMMV
> Thanks
> 
> --

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:06:08 -0600

Fred,

Yes, I agree with what you are saying, but I’m confused, what does that
have to do with ULA?

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 16:25 Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I can tell you definitively that the DNS Root Servers use IPv6 addresses
> for anycast, but they are indistinguishable from unicast addresses in
> format. The anycast magic is in BGP.
>
>> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:49 AM Keith Moore <
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> >
> 2218 University Ave SE
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2218+University+Ave+SE?entry=gmail&source=g>
>       Phone: 612-626-0815

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 14:39:20 +1300

below...
On 12-Mar-21 09:51, David Farmer wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 2:16 PM Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     David,
>     > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:49 AM Keith Moore <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> <mailto:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>     >

Yes, agreed, but somehow your previous message made me think you meant more than that.

Nico's use case seems a bit different though. He seems to be saying that there's a "ham radio" or "CB radio" type of use case where arbitrary sets of users anywhere in the world might want to route between themselves without paying any ISP for the privilege, so they'd like free address space too. Quite how they'd get the bandwidth without paying for it is a puzzle though. Generally that's the main cost element in ISP pricing.

Nico, a full length description of the use case as an Internet-Draft would be very helpful. We could take that to v6ops for discussion.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 20:26:45 -0600

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 19:39 Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> Nico's use case seems a bit different though. He seems to be saying that
> there's a "ham radio" or "CB radio" type of use case where arbitrary sets
> of users anywhere in the world might want to route between themselves
> without paying any ISP for the privilege, so they'd like free address space
> too. Quite how they'd get the bandwidth without paying for it is a puzzle
> though. Generally that's the main cost element in ISP pricing.
>
> Nico, a full length description of the use case as an Internet-Draft would
> be very helpful. We could take that to v6ops for discussion.
>
> Regards
>    Brian

I assumed Nico was talking about some version of Community Networking.

https://www.internetsociety.org/issues/community-networks/
or;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_community_network

It is fairly common for Community Networks, especially wireless ones to use
RFC 1918 for IPv4 and ULA for IPv6, and interconnect with other Community
Networks over tunnels on donated ISP connectivity from participants or
others. Ham radio is a good metaphor for this type of networking.

ARIN has a definition and policy for Community Networks again allow for /40
allocations.
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#2-11-community-network
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-9-community-network-allocations

Allowing options for Community Networks to use GUA instead of ULA.

Thanks

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 06:18:24 -0800

David,

> On Mar 11, 2021, at 6:26 PM, David Farmer <farmer=[email-masked]> wrote:
> ...
> It is fairly common for Community Networks, especially wireless ones to use RFC 1918 for IPv4 and ULA for IPv6, and interconnect with other Community Networks over tunnels on donated ISP connectivity from participants or others. Ham radio is a good metaphor for this type of networking.
> 

I disagree that Ham Radio (aka Amateur Radio) a good metaphor.   Amateur Radio is regulated by the ITU and countries, call signs are allocated by central authorities, radio frequencies are assigned, and there are rules for the types of traffic that can be sent.  For example, no commercial use.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio for details.

Bob / KI6ASK

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:12:14 -0600

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 8:18 AM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > It is fairly common for Community Networks, especially wireless ones to
> use RFC 1918 for IPv4 and ULA for IPv6, and interconnect with other
> Community Networks over tunnels on donated ISP connectivity from
> participants or others. Ham radio is a good metaphor for this type of
> networking.
> >
>
> I disagree that Ham Radio (aka Amateur Radio) a good metaphor.   Amateur
> Radio is regulated by the ITU and countries, call signs are allocated by
> central authorities, radio frequencies are assigned, and there are rules
> for the types of traffic that can be sent.  For example, no commercial use.
>

Ok, yes, it's not a perfect metaphor, for the reasons you say. However,
a lot of the same people involved in Amateur Radio, especially Amateur
Packet Radio, are also frequently involved in Community Networking using
WiFi and they have a lot of common goals. Basically, I was looking at it
the who and why of it, but yes the hows, the technologies are completely
different.

Thanks

---

From: Nico Schottelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 22:11:30 +0100

> that is an organization that makes assignments to other end-uerser.

I believe $250/y is quite a good price tag, indeed. As you mention, it
is still not fully inclusive, but I understand the reasoning to at least
cover the costs from ARIN side.

Given that all RIRs would offer /40's (I'd even go as small as /48 per
party) at cost price, this would be a good start.

In that case access to IPv6 addresses could be based on a
sponsorship / donation model, buy-2-sponsor-1, and/or cross financed by
bigger LIRs (for every /32 you sponsor access to 1 /40).

I agree with the previously discussed argument "space should not be
free" to prevent abuse, but I'd still envision a "pay by time / work"
method, because that resource is usually abundant in non-profits.

Best regards,

Nico

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 08:38:44 +1300

On 15-Mar-21 05:23, Nico Schottelius wrote:
> Good evening,
> That is correct. Or rather well known in our region:
> https://freifunk.net/, mostly based on a modified OpenWrt version.
> 
>> others.
> ULA is very dominant in these networks and it's probably also one of the
> sources we got the first requests for establishing the ULA registry.

I can only repeat: if you want action from the IETF (and remember that
on certain matters iesg@ietf can give instructions to the IANA), the case
has to be made via an I-D. Facts, numbers, use case. Getting an RFC that
sets up a first-come first-served ULA-C system isn't an impossible dream,
but it is work. That would open up the entire fc00::/8 space.

     Brian

> That is actually a *much* better approach than using ULA. As mentioned
> before, the $250 tag is significantly better than 4 digit+, but could
> still be improved. [see next mail]
> 
> 
> --

---

From: Nico Schottelius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 17:23:31 +0100

Good evening,

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 10:28:49 -0700

Brian,

> On Mar 14, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>> 

I agree.   I have always thought that the biggest issue for ULA-C is who maintains the central registry.   It needs to be free or very low cost, and permanent.

Bob

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 13:38:28 -0400

> I agree.   I have always thought that the biggest issue for ULA-C is who maintains the central registry.   It needs to be free or very low cost, and permanent.

I am guessing that the biggest issue is actually to prevent them from 
being advertised and routed in the public network.   Sure, in the near 
term, maybe everyone will filter route advertisements for ULA-C 
prefixes, but what about the long term?   Since they're globally unique 
and traceable to their owners, there's less technical justification for 
filtering them.

Keith

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:48:06 +0000

> cover the costs from ARIN side.

if $250/y seems like a good price, then why don't you:

1. register a RIPE LIR (2021 cost: €825/y)
2. get GUA PI assignments for each user and pass on charges of €50/y
3. add markup to cover costs

If you have anything more than a trivial number of address holders, then 
the mark-up should be small and the overall charge per assignment should 
be significantly less than $250/y.

E.g. if you had 50 assignees, the costs would be < €70 per annum, and 
whatever amount of time it took.

+ no need for new number registry, going outside the GUA space, filter 
problems, etc.

Nick

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 11:54:22 -0700

Keith,

> On Mar 15, 2021, at 10:38 AM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I am guessing that the biggest issue is actually to prevent them from being advertised and routed in the public network.   Sure, in the near term, maybe everyone will filter route advertisements for ULA-C prefixes, but what about the long term?   Since they're globally unique and traceable to their owners, there's less technical justification for filtering them.

I think the biggest hurdle would be to get them advertised.  That would include running BGP with an ISP and advertising the prefix.  That usually costs money.   I suspect the sites that are capable of doing this (technically and financially) would just get an RIR prefix.

Bob

---

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:36:08 -0500

> + no need for new number registry, going outside the GUA space, filter

Ok, how is €825/y less than $250/y? That come to about €210/y the $250/y is
an ISP/LIR registration of a /40 with ARIN, and the Community network can
make reassignments to its customers as it sees fit.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but with a PI assignment to the Community network,
they cannot make reassignments.

Thanks

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 19:48:11 +0000

David Farmer wrote on 15/03/2021 19:36:
> Correct me if I’m wrong, but with a PI assignment to the Community 
> network, they cannot make reassignments.

freifunk (for example) becomes an LIR.  The sponsorship of the PI 
addresses is handled by the LIR. The PI assignment is to the end user.

Nick