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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
