At 20:48 23-09-2011, Doug Barton wrote:
This document, and
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-03
talk about the potential pitfalls of not allocating the space, but my
reading of them didn't reveal an adequate examination of the opportunity
cost of taking 4,096 /22s out of the free pool.
There are three ways to get an allocation from the IANA free pool:
1. RIR allocation (that's no longer possible)
2. A global policy
3. A protocol assignment
A global policy proposal would take some time and it would not fare
well as the ARIN region has ticked off the APNIC region due to its
unilateral stance about how IPv4 addresses should be managed. The
third option offers a path to work around that.
Section 2.2.2 of draft-bdgks-arin-shared-transition-space-03 is
another option. I would not be surprised if ARIN blessed that option.
Section 4.1.2.1 of the draft mentions that:
"Since the volume of impacted endpoints will be low, operators can
likely manage the disabling of 6to4 when needed."
I smiled when I saw that as it is contrary to some positions taken
during the previous 6to4 controversy. :-)
draft-bdqks-arin-shared-transition-space went through a WGLC and it
has been determined that there is rough consensus in OPSAWG to
request publication. In my opinion it is inappropriate use of the
IETF Stream as it is not the right venue for RIR politics. I don't
believe that it is the intent of the authors to do that but that's
what it is going to be translated into.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf