Hi, On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:35:52PM +0000, David Corking wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
New RIPE Document Announcement Ref: ripe-343 Title: IPv6 Address Space Management Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik Date: 22 February 2005
as this document is far from new, and did not fly well the last time it tried to take off,
At first reaction, this seems like an improvement over the idea of IANA hoarding the enormous space while an RIR has to achieve 80% use of its allocation. (Improvement in that it favours the primary goal of promoting aggregation - while not, in a way that is obvious to me, harming the other goals of the allocation policy.)
A couple of questions :
1) Which parts of the community rejected the doc in its previous incarnation and why?
It was mostly disliked because of the use of a global common address pool, which means that you give up any chance to be able to filter/aggregate on region boundaries ("why do I need to know any details about ASes located outside my region?") - whether or not someone is doing this today doesn't matter, but it was felt that it shouldn't be made impossible right from the start. The consensus was to that we want ICANN to hand over reasonable chunks of address space (/12, /8, ...) to the individual RIRs, but that we don't want a "common pool". There is a new proposal out there since last summer, which tries to get consensus in all regions about the specifics, and then change the policy. The whole discussion can be found in the mailing list archives of the address policy mailing list, on www.ripe.net.
2) Why is IANA not a co-author - only the RIRs?
ICANN/IANA has been very passive and very resistive regarding any attempts to make the IANA->RIR allocations more reasonable. For many years now. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 71007 (66629) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234