-----Original Message----- From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:09 AM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)

Vladislav,

I have to strongly disagree with your assertions.

poty@iiat.ru wrote:

...

Nick, just because there is the word "private". Why should RIPE or some other organization (including mine) provide the registration and supporting service (for example - uniqueness) for PRIVATE networks?

First of all, RIPE is the Community, the RIPE NCC is executing the policies and providing e.g. the Registration Services.

RIPE = RIPE NCC of course in my writings. Just to be more short.

Every organsiation obtaining services, e.g. an IP-Address Assignment or an Allocation are contributing to offset the expenses; either directly or by way of an existing LIR. What service do YOU mean? Could it be possible for me (just for prestige of my company) to obtain several class-A IPv4 blocks just paying for the RIPE NCC (now correctly written?) service? We are discriminating here not to waste the address space for that? Why we should be so happy to waste the space in the other way? I speak not about expenses, you know!

...

If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that!

The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify the individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - accessible to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or for some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by help of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party?

PS: we have already seen the disadvantage of liberally applying RFC1918, i.e. non-unique, addressing in organisations that eventually were (forced to) connecting to other organisations.... Sometimes it IS disadvantage, sometimes - not. It is really depends on the point of view. I think RFC 1918 prolonged the life of v4 space and it IS an advantage. And problems... Problems were, is and will be... It shouldn't be use as an argument.

Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat