On Fri, 16 May 2003, leo vegoda wrote:

Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> writes:

[...]

...

What are the RIRs doing to reclaim all those "red" lines of allocations that have never once appeared in a routing table? I would say all assignments from before Jan 2002 and that have "never"in the "last seen" column are ripe for revocation.Question is, why hasn't this been done before and has this been discussed so far?

Is there a policy requirement that IPv6 prefixes allocated by RIRs must be routed on The Internet? I've not found it in the current "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy".

:Is there such a requirement for IPv4 prefixes? If yes (and I would hope :so, otherwise why would anyone want RFC1918 addresses when one can get :"real" IPs), then I think the same should apply for IPv6 prefixes. Allow me to give my two cents on this one: I should think not! I'm not thinking in terms of announcing /32s on the Internet; if announcing a /32 on the Internet is a requirement, I can easily cope with it. But what about in terms of private versus globally reachable IPv6 addresses ? In IPv4 we need to be careful and save IP addresses because there aren't that many and hence, we use RFC1918. In IPv6 we no longer have that problem ... so why should anyone need to use private addresses unless for a really small guarenteed closed network (i.e. site i.e. site-local within the site only) ? My question is, how do RIRs look at a company or institution using a slice of its /32 for their internal not reachable from the Internet networks ? Is this acceptable usage of IPv6 addresses or do we need to all start using the same site-local addresses as we do for RFC1918 in our internal networks and end up with endless problems with address conflicts ? Back on the subject, I wouldn't be shocked if IPv6 /32s were assigned by RIRs to LIRs that need these addresses for uniqueness and yet, don't need for them to be announced on the Internet. regards, Joao. ---