Hi, On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 10:03:57AM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
and i do not buy the assumption that the rirs need no oversight, just as i do not buy that the iana does. and i do not buy that these policy fora mailing lists provide that oversight any more than i buy that the equivalent ones in icann provide the same for the iana. So what are your proposals to improve the system, then?
what's broken?
The current mess regarding IPv6 allocations to the RIRs is. People have to wait for 8 weeks for their /20s because RIRs can't issue reasonably-sized address blocks on their own, without having to fallback to ICANN (who are hiding behind a 6-year-old RFC without showing any initiative to get the situation clarified or improved). The /23 allocation granularity is plain ridiculous, which has been voiced *very* clearly by the communities, with just no reaction.
the rirs watch the lirs. iana watches the rirs. icann watches the iana.
And who is watching ICANN?
I agree with you that ICANN doesn't work.
you are agreeing with a statement i did not make. i may have 'issues' with the icann, but in general they have not managed to break the internet as much as a lot of other players.
As who, out of the parties in question would that be, if I may ask?
As for the RIPE NCC, at least in the last few years, things have been reasonably well
and in the next few years? things go in cycles. that is why we should be relatively conservative and have oversight and cooperation.
IPv6 policy, as of today, is more than "releatively" conservative.
IPv6 things have been too conservative oh, you have run out of space?
I haven't, but people tell me that I'm supposed to build hierarchy into my network, give every customer an insanely large address block *and* do all this out of a /32. Which will work for smallish ISPs like us, for the foreseeable future - but the question remains: what is gained by handing out /32s? A chance to reach 2^29 routing table entries (which would be the result if all of FP001 is handed out as /32s)? Being too conservative on address block size which *will* lead to additional routing table entries. Note that I'm not advocating to give each ISP a /12 or even a /16 - but something better balanced (a /24, for example) would be, umm, "better balanced".
and too slow i thought you said that ripe was working well?
Don't misunderstand me on purpose, please. I wrote:
but overall "a situation people can live with". Which is pretty
- by which I meant to say "everbody will be unhappy about details, but the amount of unhappiness is low enough so people don't stand up and shout"
much the most that can be expected from such a sort of "sort-of grass-roots buerocracy".
i just don't buy the 'grass roots' stuff for the rirs any more than i buy it for icann or the government in washington dc. wake up and smell the coffee; this is not the internet of our youth.
I'm not *that* old - when I entered into this, the RIR system was already pretty much existing as it is today. So maybe everything was better in your youth, I don't know. I found a system that is bureocratic, slow, and very hard to move - but it *does* move if people find something important enough (<<< now *this* is something to complain about, people that don't care...), and the bureaucracy *can* be contained. 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