Geoff, Geoff Huston wrote: > > 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.
My concern is really to get this in place reasonably quickly, and I think that means setting relatively clear guidelines for IANA rather than leaving the field open for endless debate. > 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. But if we leave too much unspecified, we risk this being perceived as another gold rush opportunity with all the negative consequences that we know. That's really the extent of my concern. > > 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. Correct. I don't think the draft does that. It just asks the IANA to give the job to an authority. There is a technical reason given in the draft why it has to be a single authority (but it could perfectly well be operated by the RIRs in collaboration; that's not the IETF's business.) > > 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. You're fully entitled to that opinion... I was just saying that IMHO the draft *did* respond to the concerns you've expressed. > 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. It's kind of hard to write down "avoid a gold rush" as an intended outcome of an RFC, but in fact I agree with the direction of the suggested text changes in your message cited above, except that I don't see how to avoid a single authority and therefore a natural monopoly... which is definitely not an IETF issue. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
