[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"



Brian,

In your note to Alain you pose the question: 

>Do you think it is better to let the RIRs develop a policy for
>allocating PA space for local use, i.e. create a swamp like IPv4?

It appears to me that you see this as being an either / or situation,
where we accept the document as is or we defer to an RIR-lead
process to undertake this form of address distribution.

I do not agree with such an interpretation of the situation. My comments
on the weakness of the document as being ready for prime time are
based in part on over-specification of the proposed distribution function.

The IPv6 working group wish to alter the IPv6 address architecture
to define a unicast address block that is intended to be accessible
for use in a particular context. For this purpose the document is an
appropriate and necessary vehicle.

The IPv6 working group wish to then set a price for consumers of this
service and indicate that this price generates profits, and specify how 
such profits should be disbursed. My comments have been that this
is not consistent with the role of the IETF, nor may it be possible for the IANA
to implement, and I've suggested some modifications to the document
that could address such concerns, based on removing such overly
prescriptive sections of the draft.

To answer you question posed to Alain, then, I'd offer the view that
it is entirely possible that the RIRs are positioned to be able to fulfil the
role of the central registry function within the base requirements of this
particular draft, and to preclude such an option is imho, not an IETF
role.

You also note that 
"I think the current draft responds to Geoff adequately."

I posted a note to this list 
(https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg00456.html)
indicating that I did not believe that this document was ready for
Proposed Standard, and indicating where I saw deficiencies in the
document, so I do not believe that this draft provides an adequate
response to the concerns that I've raised, and my impressions of
the document at this stage are largely similar to those of Alain.

To attempt to be constructive here,  I'd be happier with a document
that  was far less prescriptive about the precise nature of the
distribution function, yet retained the description of the intended
outcomes of the function, and instructed IANA to delegate this
distribution function such that the intended outcomes are attained.

regards,

  Geoff





--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------