[6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation

[Michel Py]

> Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> I've used IPv4 space in the past to connect to extranet
> providers using unique addresses, without connecting to the
> Internet. Is such use not allowed in the IPv6 world? One
> must promise to advertise the addresses to the Internet to
> get an allocation?

Although this is blurry (no explicit requirement) we can say that as of
today, yes. But the space LIRs get is big enough to provide both
Internet and extranet services. I don't see any extranet-only provider
getting address space now though, and for multiple reasons.


> Gert Doering wrote:
> I wouldn't go so far as to say "it's not allowed".

Me neither. Actually, I don't see why it should be forbidden, as long as
one obtains the address space, which is the issue here.


> When the policy was made, people were still suggesting the use
> of site-local addresses for "non-global" usage.  Site-locals
> seem to be dead, so there is a hole in the policies right now.
> Passing on the question from the registry point of view to the
> IETF people (Michael & co): what are your recommendations how
> this can be addressed (in the double sense)?

[disclaimer: I do not represent the views of the IETF]

This is a complex answer.

First, let's not leave site-locals for dead yet. Technically, we do have
site-locals using the "full usage" model, as defined by RFC 3513 that
was just published. The current situation is that there is a "consensus"
to deprecate them, which has pissed so many people that appeals are
lined up for the next 2 years already (take-a-number if you want to
appeal).
There is no actual text to remove site-locals and it is expected that
any text that would attempt to do that will be stalled and never go
forward.

In short: technically speaking we currently do have site-locals with an
RFC in the standards track and I don't expect any change any time soon.

That being said, the reason we got into this deadlock is that
site-locals as currently defined do not please many people. If there is
change in leadership within the IETF and work on site-locals is resumed
(instead of trying to get "my way or no way") it is expected that
site-locals will be restricted to a model that prohibits communication
between sites.

So, in any case I would not use site-locals for communication between
sites. There are ideas floating around to make them globally unique, but
this is for the purpose of avoiding renumbering when merging sites and
not to provide site-to-site communication. Global addresses are required
for that purpose, whether or not they are publicly routed or not.

There are several proposals to provide PI-like addresses that are moving
forward though.

Michel.