ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

2007-05-30 02:24:06
That's broken. As it has been stated in previous messages 
some days ago, RIR communities can do whatever they want, 
especially if IETF fails. 

That may be true but since the IETF is not failing, there is no reason for the 
RIRs to take over any IETF functions.

I'm doing IETF work, but it is 
clear that some times, for whatever reasons is too slow, or 
even fails. This community has the right to bypass that if required.

What community? So far I see only you suggesting that the RIRs should usurp the 
IETF role in defining Internet numbers.
 
And one more demonstration that this is broken: All the RIRs 
did 4-byte-ASN policies when no RFCs where available. As you 
can see the RIR system is still working.

Jordi, you are twisting the truth. When the RIRs passed the 4-byte ASN 
policies, there were already Internet drafts working their way through the IETF 
process. 4-byte ASN work was part of the charter of the IETF's IDR working 
group. According to the IDR records here
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/idr.html
They had a goal to submit an RFC candidate document to the IESG in October 2005 
which was more than a year before ARIN passed its 4-byte ASN policy. This is an 
example of the RIRs working in concert with the IETF. What you are proposing is 
for the RIRs to completely bypass the IETF process entirely.

So yes, I will much prefer to have an RFC, and this is the 
way we are going, but nothing precludes to go in parallel, as 
it has been done in the 4-byte-ASN, and probably some other 
times I guess.

Your guess is not good enough. In fact, even if you manage to get an RIR to 
pass some sort of ULA-C policy, it will not be good enough for most companies 
who want a centrally registered address block. These companies want some 
security of ownership in those addresses. They want strong assurances that 
their registered allocation will stay with them for the life of the company or 
the life of IPv6 whichever comes first. If ULA-C comes about through the 
dubious process that you propose, then there is no guarantee that the RIRs 
won't revoke ULA-C 6 months later. I would recommend that anyone needing the 
guarantee of uniqueness from a central registry should apply for PI address 
blocks. And if your local RIR does not offer PI IPv6 blocks, then work to get a 
policy passed to do this, such as was done in the ARIN region.

And, in the worst case, if the IETF fails again on this (I'm 
sure will not be the case this time), we could always go for 
a global policy to instruct IANA to delegate that resource to 
the RIRs.

Regards,
Jordi




De: <michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <ppml-bounces(_at_)arin(_dot_)net>
Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 22:13:47 +0100
Para: <ppml(_at_)arin(_dot_)net>, <address-policy-wg(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net>
Conversación: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again
Asunto: Re: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again

The policies for ULA-C are likely to be different from the 
policies 
for PI.

ULA-C doesn't exist. There is not even a current Internet draft to 
define what the acronym stands for. If any RIRs create a policy on 
that basis, then it will be the beginning of the end of the 
RIR system.

The RIRs are supposed to be stewards, prudently managing a shared 
resource.

--Michael Dillon

_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
Mailing List 
(PPML(_at_)arin(_dot_)net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be 
privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not 
the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or use of the contents of this information, 
including attached files, is prohibited.



_______________________________________________
This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy 
Mailing List (PPML(_at_)arin(_dot_)net).
Manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again, michael.dillon <=