Re: [NRO comment on ULA 3] Needed changes

[Geoff Huston <gih@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 06:21 AM 1/07/2004, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>|        It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
>|        vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
>|        choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that charge
>|        applicable to this service reflect the different cost structure
>|        of secure maintenance of assignment records for a fixed period vs
>|        costs for this record maintenance to be undertaken in perpetuity.
>
>This would appear to be a serious change in the nature of the addresses
>contemplated by the draft.  I think we need to discuss how to implement
>the addresses as specified, not how to make them more like existing rental
>space.  I also suggest that these types of concerns (which are inevitable
>if the existing RIRs handle the allocations) are a strong reason to consider
>using a separate allocation authority.

In reading this comment its not easy to understand what argument is being 
raised here in support of the assertion that  this represents a serious 
change in the nature of the addresses contemplated, and that, by 
implication, an in perpetuity registration service should be the only 
available mode of registration? It is evident that this comment is 
voicing  opposition to the concept of a choice of assignment models, the 
concept that a 'in perpetuity' registration be one of a number of 
alternative registration models, and the principle that the charges of 
registration under any given registration model should reflect the costs 
associated with the operation of the service, but there is no explanation 
in the note of the reasoning behind suchviews. A discussion on this topic 
is no doubt the reason why the NRO note was passed to the working group, 
and this is as good a starting point as any, but I hold the personal view 
that the discussion needs a more substantive foundation that trading 
unfounded assertions about the attributes of allocation entities.

regards,

   Geoff Huston



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