Noel, At 02:36 PM 11/30/2001 -0500, J. Noel Chiappa wrote: >>** > Most, if not all, of the same people who are refused IPv4 address >>** > allocations will (or should if we expect not to re-create the swamp) be >>** > refused allocations of IPv6 addresses. >Holy smoke! That's really major.
Huh? This really shouldn't (at this late date) be a surprise to anyone. RIRs allocate TLAs (or sub-TLAs) to "TLA Registries". TLAs are the only prefixes that are supposed to be in the "default free zone" routing tables. Ergo... >I hadn't realized the registries >were trying to guard against routing table bloat as well as address space >exhaustion. I'm curious, when did this start, and how was it decided? Ever since the RIRs existed? See goal number 2 of section 1 of ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2050.txt or section 2.2.2 of http://www.arin.net/regserv/ipv6/IPv6.txt. As to how it was decided, my guess would be "by default". Rgds, -drc
