Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 04:39:20PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
I read it that IANA don't see RIR's needing more than a /12 in a 36 month period - thus a /12 would at least meet the RIR's needs for the next 36 months.
Seems like a much better idea than faffing about handing out a /23 every few months.
i'll be blunt. this apnic proposal is still the same geoff and paul land grab. with the doubling algorithm, the proposal would have all of ipv6 space to the rirs in a few short years.
"if they manage to get 50% of it distributed to their LIRs". What makes you assume that this will happen? If I look at the IPv4 address distribution rules of the past 5 years, the trend was clearly towards being more and more conservative. Given the (current) IPv6 policy, I hardly see a way to get a /8 filled (this would be 2^24 /32s, and even 2^12=4096 /20s, which is roughly the number of members the RIRs have - and most of them will certainly not qualify for a /20 any time soon).
they failed to get all of fp=001 allocated to the rirs in a block,
RIPE-261 actually had some clever ideas behind (the binary chop algorithm to make sure even the largest ISPs only need one single v6 prefix), but was refused from the community for other reasons (people wanted to *see* which region a prefix belongs to). A large part of the community seems to be trusting the RIRs a *lot* more than ICANN, btw.
so have a new way to get it in a few pieces. given that fp=001 is supposed to last decades, and we don't know decades of internet governance (what once used to be called stewardship) reliability, this seems unwise.
So am I right in interpreting this as "as we don't know whether the way forward is the right way, let's stop moving altogether"? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299