Thus spake "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
The RIRs do not limit the discussion of operations experience
to a narrow few sources, rather the the discussion is open to all
and an array of perspectives are offered. The RIRs do not per
se discuss operations, the discussion is over policies that are
reflective of real world operational experience.
what I meant was that users' operations are arguably as important
as ISPs operations, and I presume that because of their
membership the RIRs are only considering the latter.
The RIRs are definitely biased towards ISPs, because IP addressing policy is
a core business concern to ISPs but "overhead" to other companies. The IETF
has more vendors but still few end users.
However, there is adequate proof the RIRs can respond to end users' concerns
when anyone cares enough to show up: PIv6 wouldn't have happened without
end-user operators coming out of the woodwork to support it, overwhelming
ISP and IETF resistance. The periodic flamefests about how to treat legacy
space are also demonstrations of end-user input, though it seems to amount
to no more than "leave us alone" vs "kill them all" in most cases.
perhaps, but if IETF has the problem that it's not willing to
assert its ownership over its own protocols, that problem is
better addressed in IETF than in ARIN.
It's not a matter of ownership but whether the engineering
solution is still germane to real world needs.
they are separate problems. if the recommendations we made
are not viable, then we need to know that so we can fix it.
When you've got people in the RIRs talking about "routing around the
failure" in reference to the IETF, that's a pretty clear indication. I know
the RIRs send liaisons to the IETF; does the IETF send liaisons to the RIRs
and various NOGs? Is anyone actually feeding information back and forth
officially, or do we just have a few people rehashing the same arguments on
different mailing lists?
IPv6 (as I first understood it) did have a business model assumed -
that one ISP would be all that an enterprise customer would need,
I don't know anybody who assumed that. I think it was instead
assumed that multihomed sites could make do with multiple
(prefixes,addresses) per (net,host) and that applications could
somehow tolerate having multiple source and destination
addresses, be able to pick a reasonable pair from among those
available, and fail over to another source or destination address
when one end or another renumbered or the connection
failed. (All of which I find rather dubious, but it's not the same
thing as assuming that there would be one ISP for an enterprise.)
The operational community heard that message, deemed it not a viable
solution, and responded by passing PIv6. Heck, people think NAT (and we all
know the IETF's head-in-the-sand attitude on that part of reality) with ULAs
is more viable than multiple parallel PA assignments.
Okay, maybe I'm stretching the point here. I am not sure why I
am bothering to post. I guess I've become disappointed in the
amount of disrespect displayed in this thread.
well, I'm disappointed in the amount of disrespect displayed by
Perhaps that's true. Or perhaps the RIRs are trying to get the message
across that how they assign addresses is up to their communities, not the
IETF. Frankly, short of the IETF telling IANA to pull the RIRs'
allocations, I don't see what practical authority the IETF has over address
policy. I also fail to see why the IETF thinks it _should_ have any
authority over that or any other operational matters. In my view, the IETF
develops tools and it's up to operators to determine if/how to use them.
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Ietf mailing list