On 15-Mar-21 05:23, Nico Schottelius wrote: > > Good evening, > > David Farmer <farmer@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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 > > That is correct. Or rather well known in our region: > https://freifunk.net/, mostly based on a modified OpenWrt version. > >> 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. > > 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 >> 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 > > 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] > > > -- > Sustainable and modern Infrastructures by ungleich.ch >
