RE: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not a deployment body. /jim
-----Original Message----- From: owner-shim6@psg.com [mailto:owner-shim6@psg.com] On Behalf Of Iljitsch van Beijnum Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 3:18 AM To: Patrick W. Gilmore Cc: shim6-wg; ppml@arin.net; global-v6@lists.apnic.net; IETF Discussion; address-policy-wg@ripe.net; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: [narten@us.ibm.com: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]
On 16-apr-2006, at 6:09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Wow, Iljitsch, I have never lost so much respect so quickly for someone who was not flaming a specific person or using profanity. Congratulations.
Well, that's too bad. But several years of trying to get a scalable multihoming off the ground (flying to different meetings on my own dime) where first my ideas about PI aggregation are rejected within the IETF mostly without due consideration because it involves the taboo word "geography" only to see the next best thing being rejected by people who, as far as I can tell, lack a view of the big picture, is enough to make me lose my cool. Just a little.
Back on topic, it is not just those 60 people - the "playground" appears to overwhelmingly agree with their position. I know I do.
Don't you think it's strange that the views within ARIN are so radically different than those within the IETF? Sure, inside the IETF there are also people who think PI in IPv6 won't be a problem, but it's not the majority (as far as I can tell) and certainly not anything close to 90%. Now the IETF process isn't perfect, as many things depend on whether people feel like actually doing something. But many of the best and the brightest in the IETF have been around for some time in multi6 and really looked at the problem. Many, if not most, of them concluded that we need something better than IPv4 practices to make IPv6 last as long as we need it to last. Do you think all of them were wrong?
I am sorry your technical arguments have not persuaded us in the past. But I would urge you to stick to those,
Stay tuned.
Hi, On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:03:22PM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not a deployment body.
Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that is, IETF makes standards that people can work with, and RIRs use allocation policies that somewhat reflect what the protocol designers had in mind. For IPv6, this isn't a huge success story yet... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
Hi,
Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that is, IETF makes standards that people can work with, and RIRs use allocation policies that somewhat reflect what the protocol designers had in mind.
This is a proper model which should remain this way with a little fix. IETF engineering effort is funded (indirectly) by the employers of the engineers. RIRs administrative work is funded through membership and allocation fees, which essentially equals selling of IP addresses. Because the Internet is a shared resourse its enablers such as IP addresses are not for sale but rather for a free assignment to everyone. RIRs function should be funded through a politically / economically neutral body, e.g. UN. Technically the current way of RIR cost recovery hinders the network neutrality. Peter --- Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 06:03:22PM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
The IETF has NOTHING to say anymore than any other body about any RIR policy. I want it to remain that way. IETF job is a standards body not a deployment body.
Things work a lot better if IETF and RIRs work hand-in-hand - that is, IETF makes standards that people can work with, and RIRs use allocation policies that somewhat reflect what the protocol designers had in mind.
For IPv6, this isn't a huge success story yet...
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 88685
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (3)
-
Bound, Jim -
Gert Doering -
Peter Sherbin