Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Johan Ihren wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> writes:
I guess if the RFC is there is because IANA requires it, so moving this to historic will not work, instead updating it will do.
Help me out here. Why would IANA require it? I don't remember there being an RFC telling IANA how to allocate other resources? What's so special about IPv6 addresses?
The lesson learned here is that IANA allocation policy based on numbers specified in an RFC caused problems once. Then updating the RFC to get around the problem is broken. That's just pushing the problem out of sight with a clear promise of it coming back to bite us sometime in the future.
Moving the RFC to historic is one half of the solution. The other half is IANA standing on their own legs (together with the NRO) on these matters.
Thank you for including me in this discussion. Rather than attempting to correct details of the history described in this thread (and which even if I was right it wouldn't matter too much since they happened before I took my current position in December of 2003) I would like to suggest a way forward. The current membership of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has expressed an interest in the direction in which IPv6 allocation policy proceeds. ICANN thinks that this interest is perfectly reasonable, and welcomes it, as well as their valuable insight on the relevant issues. My position on this issue has been clearly stated on numerous occasions going back to January of this year. It is not IANA's job to create policy. We will however be glad to participate in a discussion that is designed to lead to a policy, offering our unique perspective. An excellent example of how this process probably should work is the IPv4 global allocation policy that was developed in cooperation between the RIRs and IANA back in July 2003. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html That policy subsequently went through the policy fora in all 4 regions, and is currently awaiting finalization through the ASO process. A similar process needs to occur in relationship to IPv6 allocation policy on a global level. ICANN and the IAB stand ready to enter into such discussions, and eagerly await such an invitation from the RIRs. Between now and the time that such a policy is created, IANA's position is that it is not appropriate for us to attempt to be "creative" in this area. Doug -- Doug Barton General Manager, The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
Hi Doug, Thanks for your reply. This means basically that the process should be started by ASO or IAB or any of them ? Updating the RFC isn't an option ? My guess is that the updated could be backed up by the IAB. The main point is HOW to kick-off the process ... Regards, Jordi ---- Original Message ---- From: "Doug Barton" <barton@icann.org> To: "Johan Ihren" <johani@autonomica.se> Cc: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>; "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>; <ipv6-wg@ripe.net>; <hinden@iprg.nokia.com> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] New IPv6 Address Block Allocated to RIPE NCC
Johan Ihren wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> writes:
I guess if the RFC is there is because IANA requires it, so moving this to historic will not work, instead updating it will do.
Help me out here. Why would IANA require it? I don't remember there being an RFC telling IANA how to allocate other resources? What's so special about IPv6 addresses?
The lesson learned here is that IANA allocation policy based on numbers specified in an RFC caused problems once. Then updating the RFC to get around the problem is broken. That's just pushing the problem out of sight with a clear promise of it coming back to bite us sometime in the future.
Moving the RFC to historic is one half of the solution. The other half is IANA standing on their own legs (together with the NRO) on these matters.
Thank you for including me in this discussion. Rather than attempting to correct details of the history described in this thread (and which even if I was right it wouldn't matter too much since they happened before I took my current position in December of 2003) I would like to suggest a way forward.
The current membership of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) has expressed an interest in the direction in which IPv6 allocation policy proceeds. ICANN thinks that this interest is perfectly reasonable, and welcomes it, as well as their valuable insight on the relevant issues.
My position on this issue has been clearly stated on numerous occasions going back to January of this year. It is not IANA's job to create policy. We will however be glad to participate in a discussion that is designed to lead to a policy, offering our unique perspective.
An excellent example of how this process probably should work is the IPv4 global allocation policy that was developed in cooperation between the RIRs and IANA back in July 2003. http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html That policy subsequently went through the policy fora in all 4 regions, and is currently awaiting finalization through the ASO process.
A similar process needs to occur in relationship to IPv6 allocation policy on a global level. ICANN and the IAB stand ready to enter into such discussions, and eagerly await such an invitation from the RIRs.
Between now and the time that such a policy is created, IANA's position is that it is not appropriate for us to attempt to be "creative" in this area.
Doug
********************************** Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit Presentations and videos on line at: http://www.ipv6-es.com This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-06-22, at 07.14, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
The main point is HOW to kick-off the process ...
RIPE NCC sends in the request for a /8. Easy. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA+AwUBQNfGfKarNKXTPFCVEQJIPgCYoagt3FzG/Rwg8STE5pJu+jsIqgCgogIM KabIKcSeBFSxYuFVFYN66f0= =bn9r -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Doug Barton -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist