Hi, On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:50:51PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
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"?
I interpret it as "we are driving in fog and don't know the road ahead, lets better wear a safety belt". And I do not see why assigning larger blocks to the RIRs would speed up the IPv6 deployment.
I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something that does not end in IR at all?
Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this. The /6s is *reserved* for a respective RIR, and will be used if it needs to be. If a RIR never outgrows its /12, the remaining 65 /12s inside the /6 will be never touched. The benefit in carving up the space now is that each RIR will effectively work from one contiguous block (ignoring the 2001::/23 swamp), thus enabling people (who *have* expressed interest in this) to be able to apply filters (of any sort) by region. Besides this, I don't really see a "we will have 150 NIRs on global level" structure - maybe NIRs below the RIR (as APNIC does it, which is a can of worms on its own), but not on global level - such a structure will never be able to come up with anything resembling a global policy (see the last IPv6 policy discussion - it's hard enough with 5 communities that need to come up with something common).
We should keep organizational scalability in mind as much as technical scalability. Both are equally important, so ignoring one of the two seems like a mistake to me. I would even go so far as to say that in the future most likely the technical scalability issues regarding Address assignment will be smaller then they are today (by looking at the technical improvements regarding possible routing table size over the last 20 years).
So what do you propose? Keep the /23-allocation process, which is really annoying larger networks today? Please stop argueing "let's not do that!" without proposals how to achieve the goal: fix the current ICANN -> RIR allocation mess, *AND* build a system that can at least try to achieve "one IPv6 block per LIR" even for LIRs that grow over time (and for that, you need *lots* of address space at the RIR level, to keep some space between LIR allocations). 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