I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and should be avoided.
I trust that everyone commenting on this has actually read the current draft. A fixed charge was removed several drafts ago.
The current draft does not impose a fixed charge for a prefix, but instead sets a requirement that the allocation authority implement a mechanism that prevents hoarding. Specifically from section 3.2.1 Centrally Assigned Global IDs:
- Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding of these allocations.
....
The allocation service should include sufficient provisions to avoid hoarding of numbers. This can be accomplished by various ways, for example, requiring an exchange of documents, a verbal contact, or a proof that the request is on behalf of a human rather than a machine. The service may charge a small fee in order to cover its costs, but the fee should be low enough to not create a barrier to anyone needing one. The precise mechanisms should be decided by the registration authority.
Bob
To avoid hoarding, of course it would be good to avoid bugs. In case, that is considered impossible (sigh!) we can also demand that each address and/or prefix be accompanied by a certificate generated by IANA with a one-way hash to validate it. The hash is to be unforgeable. The certificate is to contain the time of issuance.
Nobody is going to be able to present a billion certificates satisfying the time constraint that each one be separated by one or more seconds. This can be made to be machine verifiable also.
Maybe there is another way, but in any case I strongly think the fixed charge should be avoided.
And, finally, I assert that the bugs can be avoided anyway. It doesn't have to be more than a few hundred lines of code.
Regards, Charlie P.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> Jarno, this is exactly why the fixed charge is suggested - to make
> the cost of bulk hoarding significant.
>
> And no, I don't want to imagine such a bug - I have more confidence than
> that in IANA and the organisations IANA delegates to.
>
> Brian
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Narten wrote:
> > > why we can't make such assignments permanent. (Note: I'd agree with
> > > you that the assignments shouldn't be permanent if there was a case to
> > > be made that it may become necessary to reclaim them at some future
> > > time. Is there?)
> > >
> >
> > What if someone manages to hoard the address space and then starts to sell them? Assume a bug in the system managing the allocations and someone exploiting it and getting 1/2 of the whole address space that they now "own" for good.
> >
> > Maybe there should be a notion of reclaiming prefixes that should not have been allocated in the first place?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jarno
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Brian E Carpenter
> Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
